GAY TRUTH

A nationwide poll has found that there is widespread opposition to the legal effects of a ‘conversion therapy’ ban. In the poll of 1,000 New Zealanders surveyed just before Christmas by Curia Market Research, respondents were asked “If a person is unsure about their sexual orientation or gender identity, should they be able to seek counseling support to determine their own direction in how they identify?” 81% of respondents said they believed a person should be able to seek counseling support to determine their own direction. Only 12% were opposed. According to a legal opinion released yesterday, if a person wanted to align their sexuality with the teachings and values of their particular faith – be it Muslim or Christian, Jewish or Sikh – and sought help to do so from a minister, imam, or another faith leader, a ban would make it virtually impossible to access the support they wanted. Furthermore, if they were able to find someone prepared to provide counseling of that kind, they coul

Australia has seen two recent initiatives by local Parliaments aimed at what are often called "conversion therapy" practices. No-one supports coercive electro-shock or other oppressive practices imposed on someone without their consent, to change their sexual preferences or identity. But the problem with the recent legislative proposals is that the laws do not target these practices alone (as to which it is hard to find any evidence of them occurring in Australia in recent years), but seem to reach further and to prevent religious groups sharing the teaching of their faith. The Legislation There are two legislative initiatives here. (a) The Queensland Act Queensland has already enacted its version among other changes to its health laws. The  Health Legislation Amendment Act  2020  (Qld) (No 31 of 2020) received the Royal Assent on 20 August 2020. As no other provision is made for commencement of the relevant provisions in Part 5, it has now commenced operati

Prohibitions on “gay conversion therapy” are becoming popular with legislators. Of course, no sensible person supports someone being administered – against their will – electroshock therapy or chemicals or oppressive bullying  - to make them change their sexual orientation (which are the sort of things most people think of when this phrase is used).  But there is a real danger that legislation which goes beyond targeting these specific things will itself interfere with the freedom of people to seek to change unwanted behaviors. Suppose there is a devout Christian person who accepts the Bible’s teaching that same-sex sexual activity is not God’s will, and yet experiences same-sex attraction. They approach their pastor or their small group leader and ask for help to overcome what they see as a sinful attraction, by reading the Bible with them, counseling and regular meetings for prayer. Is that going to be caught by the legislation? Take the current proposals which are befor

The California Assembly will soon vote on a resolution laying the framework for what many of us have feared and predicted for years: the power of the State to dictate moral positions to the Church. Assembly Concurrent Resolution 99, in its own words, “calls upon religious leaders with conviction to counsel on LGBT matters from a place of love, compassion and knowledge of the psychological and other harms of conversion therapy.” It further resolves that “in addressing the stigma often associated with persons who identify as LGBT,” the State of California now calls on pastors and religious workers to “model equitable treatment of all people of the state.” Telling Pastors What They Should Do Pastors in the Golden State may wonder if they really need a legislative reminder to counsel with love and model equitable treatment. They also might greet this resolution with a clerical yawn. After all, who cares if the Assembly wants them to avoid stigmatizing lesbians and gays and treat eve

I would like comment briefly on suggestions that ministers who are committed to a Biblical view of man/woman marriage ought to “hand in their license” and no longer participate in solemnizing any marriages for the purposes of the  Marriage Act . This is an “internal” debate among those who have a high view of the Bible. But for those readers, I would like to make it clear that I disagree with the suggestion. The position has recently been put forward by someone whom I respect immensely, Pastor Campbell Markham from the Presbyterian Church in Tasmania, in his article “ Resignation from the Marriage Act ” (Nov 29, 2017). Pastor Markham has the courage of his convictions in a number of areas- he is currently the subject of a complaint under the Tasmanian ADA similar to one made previously against Archbishop Julian Porteous. However, on this issue, he and I disagree. Of course, I have no criticism of his decision to not solemnize marriages under the law of Australia if

The Supreme Court won't hear the major  religious liberty case  until Tuesday, but already hopeful spectators and line-holders are bearing colder temperatures equipped with sleeping bags, coolers and lawn chairs hoping to secure a rare seat in the majestic chamber for what could be one of the most important cases of the term. At issue is a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake to celebrate a same-sex couple's marriage because he believes that God designed marriage to be between a man and a woman. The case pits the religious liberty claims of Jack Phillips , who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop, against the couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig , who say Phillips' actions amount to discrimination. No cameras, please: How the Supreme Court shuns the spotlight LGBT rights advocates fear that if the Supreme Court ultimately sides with Phillips, it will diminish its own opinion from two years ago that cleared the way for same-sex marriage nationwide