The Marriage Act of Australia.

(As at September 2015)

Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

 [Certain unions are not marriages. A union solemnised in a foreign country between: (a) a man and another man; or (b) a woman and another woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia.]


 

Soliloquy

How Can I Say ‘Yes” To ‘Marriage Equality’

and be true to my God, to myself,

to the society that I live in

and to all that I believe in?

I cannot

*         When I know that the story of evolution and biological life on earth requires the action of male and female. Not male and male, not female and female,

*         When I know that without male and female, a man and a woman, the two who are designed to complement one another, to bring together something that two of the same cannot,

*          When I know that without a man and a woman there would be no life, no children, no human future,

*         When from the dawn of human history, marriage has been seen as the formal bonding between a man and a woman,

*          When the wisdom of thousands of years of reflection and thought, the world’s religions, natural law and civil society concur on this matter,

*          When I know that this is the inexorable logic and truth of this  fundamental reality,

*         That although marriages  sometimes fail, and that there could be other close human relationships, which might prove tender, lasting, satisfying and productive, marriage as such, always required a man and a woman.

*         When I am aware that in many western style democracies today, there are many who are determined to scramble, circumvent and falsify this truth, asserting that they are the enlightened ones and that those who think  or say otherwise should shut up,

*         When I see them employ whatever prestige, power and pressure they can command upon and against those who refuse to dilute the definition of marriage,

*         When they bring their view to bear on the public, on politicians and on governments, so as to gain their acquiescence and their compliance or silence to legalise the fallacious euphemism they call marriage equality,

*          How can I go along with this ‘flash in the pan’ definition of‘ marriage’ in the name of broad-mindedness, compassion, justice , equality?

*         How can I look aside and say ‘Let them have their way because it will not affect me personally’, and say nothing?

*         Should I be afraid that if I express my disagreement I will be considered biased, out of touch, a stick in the mud, or lose popularity or business?

*         How can I agree with the proposed change to the Marriage Act , when I know that this will be the thin end of a very large wedge which would have unforeseen and negative social and legal consequences?

*         How can I stay silent when I know that homosexual ‘parenting’ has already begun to be depicted as normal, among primary school children, and education in homosexual techniques as well in some schools?

*       When I know that legalisation of same-sex marriage, will be followed by an avalanche of unforeseen consequences, as in our schools, government institutions, public places, in employment, and so on?

*         When I know that those who do not, and cannot in conscience accept and adapt to the changes, will soon find themselves falling foul of the law?

 Shouldn’t we pause and think awhile. Why rush?

* We know that human society and individual families include people of varying age, experience and ability.

*We know that with the passage of time, individuals’ and groups’ insights and preferences change. Take a look at yourself, and your own family, for example, as I too do in my own case.

* We know that all so often yesterday’s certainty is tomorrow’s doubt; today’s ‘wisdom’ is tomorrow’s ‘folly’.

*Moreover, each generation tends think that it is cleverer and knows better than the one preceding it.

*And in our lives and histories, if we are honest about it, we tend to look back and cry “Oops!”

* And we know that this applies to us as individuals, collectivities and nations, and very much so to our politicians and leaders.

*Moreover, how many times have our/their ‘superior’ judgment resulted in unforeseen and even disastrous outcomes?

* So, in the context of the present reflection, should not the status quo on marriage be maintained?

* For, would it be wise, beneficial and fair for people who know that their minds will probably change with time and greater maturity

.. to insist that the entire nation plunge into the unknown, to go with whimsy, and expediency and political correctness, and a distorted sense of justice and fair play

..to take aboard what has been but a recent idea and to downgrade the logic of the millennia and the wisdom of religion?

*Intoxicated by egoism, myopia and the power of parliament, should politicians, despite their desire to please/appease the electorate, and to secure their seats, water down the present definition of marriage?

*Should a plebiscite, which gives the nod to the demand of the electoral majority, and the ‘too bad’ for the others, (including children whose voice is silent) be used to change the present definition of marriage without hurting  and damaging too many?

A referendum may be fairer, though only slightly so. In Australia, it would require not only the support of a majority of voters, but also the support of the individual states (where the less populous states will not be steam-rollered by the larger ones).

*Either of these may cost more, but in the light of the importance of the issue under discussion, but it would be just to consider the views of all Australians, not only members of Parliament, here today and gone tomorrow.

* In the present climate in Australia aren’t there far more pressing tasks and problems for both government and people to focus their attention upon?

*Like many other sexual relationships, which people engage in without reference to the present legal definition of marriage, and will continue to do so in a de-facto capacity anyway, with social benefit and without penalty, why change the time-honoured definition.

*Altering it is not going to ensure the permanence of love and fidelity between the same-sex couples, or prevent marriage breakdown, or guarantee the happiness and well-being of children taken into the partnership.

Conclusion

        *In the face of all these challenges, may we continue to promote respect for one another as members of the human family, as children of God.

*May we foster peaceful, caring relationships; economic, social and environmental justice for the good of all; and do so without distorting and denying the fundamental truth that marriage itself can only be between a man and a woman.

So,

How Can I Say “Yes” To ‘Marriage Equality’

and be true to my God, to myself,

to the society that I live in

and to all that I believe in

and not be engaged in and be a victim of self-deceit?

Honestly, I cannot.