Politicians, can we please get over the lie that once we “legitimise” gay marriage then society as we know it will end?
Traditional Christian teaching (and, indeed, many religious perspectives) argues that homosexual sex is a sin and that, by extension, homosexuality is effectively ‘wrong’. Andrew Tiedt is one such believer. However, unlike many Christians speaking publicly on the issue, Tiedt has no objection to gay marriage being legalised. His argument is a common sense, but nonetheless refreshing, one: what people do in their lives is entirely their business. After all, many things that religions regard as ‘sinful’ are perfectly legal.
Tiedt goes on to dispel the typical refrain that marriage is an ‘institution’ to promote families, and that gays and lesbian shouldn’t be parents - that somehow, being exposed to homosexual relationships is intrisincally bad for children — or, at the very least, inferior to having both a mum and a dad. But this is pure bunkum. The link between marriage and child-rearing is a tenuous one: many married couples (whether by choice or medical condition) don’t have kids, while plenty of unmarried couples do. And, of course, there are plenty of happy, well-adjusted kids living in single parent households.
Regular readers of this blog (and my Twitter feed) would know I can be highly critical of organised religion. But I have no truck with religious people in general. Andrew Tiedt’s commentary today is a great example of why. While church leaders may seek to impose their values on the world around them, plenty in their congregations don’t. God, if he exists, gave us all free will. People should be allowed to exercise it.
When I attempt the fraught task of putting self to paper this census, I’ll be muttering an aimless prayer before reluctantly crossing ‘no religion’. … I fear my X may be hijacked for irreligious — that is, anti-religious — purposes.
Michael Collett, ABC News
Last night, Australians dutifully completed paperwork for the Australian Government as part of the 5-yearly national census. (Or they would have, had they actually received census papers like they were meant to — but that’s a personal grumble.) One of the most contentious questions, as always, asked about religious beliefs.
In the last census, many Australians without religious beliefs took to ticking the ‘other’ box, and writing in their own fictitious faiths — Jedi (of Star Wars fame) and pastafarian (those who believe in the ‘flying spaghetti monster’ in the sky). This time, atheists cautioned that such answers, while perhaps amusing in their own way, actually distorted national statistics (by biasing upwards the number of Australians reported as holding religious beliefs). However, as Michael Collett writes, there are also degrees of religious ‘disbelief’. Some, like Collett, simply don’t believe in God, but are also agnostic — they don’t know one way or the other whether He exists or not. Others are devout (if one can use that description) atheists who are actively anti-religious. This latter group has an interest in boosting the ‘no religion’ answer on census forms to try to attack and discredit religion.
I am certainly a non-believer, and value a broadly secular society. Holding ‘no religion’ is quite distinct from being actively opposed to religion. And in a liberal civil society, that is a difference itself worth recognising.
Two sides of the same dark coin
In the immediate aftermath of the bombing of government offices in Oslo last month (later that day followed up by an even deadlier shooting spree), media speculation swirled over who was responsible. In particular, blame settled on Islamic extremists (though not without some justification — one militant group falsely claimed responsibility). Of course, as we now know, the perpetrator was a deranged Norwegian fascist hell-bent on expelling immigrants. In fact, as Waleed Aly writes, there is much in common between the stated philosophies of al-Qaeda and Anders Behring Breivik. Neither has much regard for democracy. Al-Qaeda wants an Islamic caliphate unifying the Middle East, and free from Western intervention. Breivik wants a culturally conservative, Christian Europe, without Muslims.
You don’t have to be a terrorist to share such views. Even in condemning violence, efforts to preserve cultural ‘homogeneity’ still appears to enjoy support from many quarters — observable from published op-eds to rants by Joe Public in online comments to news articles. While one would hope that massacres like those in Norway would help promote tolerance, there is no guarantee that they will encourage greater appreciation for diversity. But for Norway’s xenophobic far right, it is not Muslims who have inflicted the greatest harm to their country, but one of their own.
The modern fight for equality
In historic news from the United States, legislators in New York have granted the same-sex marriage rights. While not the first state to do so, it is certainly one of the more ‘important’ based on population and influence. As the editors at Bloomberg View observe, the battle to recognise gay marriage is comparable to the civil rights movement that gave equal recognition to African Americans.
For what it’s worth, my preference is for there to be no legislation on marriage — let it be solely a religious institution, and allow religious organisations to determine the conditions under which they will marry people. But so long as the state chooses to provide special legal rights to couples, then I see no reason why preference should be given to those in heterosexual relationships over those in homosexual relationships. Anything else is blatantly discriminatory. Whether such recognition (for both gay and straight partners) is called ‘marriage’ or not is of little consequence in my judgment, just so long as it is equal.
I’ve spent considerable energy over the years defending the Catholic Church from some of the extremes of vitriol it attracts (as well as criticising perceived inadequacies), but the church’s worst enemy is its own leadership.
Barney Zwartz, religion editor of The Age
The Catholic Church has an uncanny knack for attracting criticism. It has proven worse than useless in dealing with issues of sexual abuse among its clergy, but is prepared to launch stinging attacks on those priests who don’t precisely toe the party line. The bishop of Toowoomba, William Morris, has effectively been forced out of his post for daring to suggest that the Church might one day want to have a discussion about allowing female priests. He wasn’t even advocating the position, merely hinting at it as a possibility. While this was only one example of Morris’ liturgical incompliance, it seems hard to justify such an extreme stance — particularly as the Church has plenty of priests who, through their breach of trust in either directly abusing children in their care or covering up such acts, still continue to serve.
