PERTH, Australia, November 1, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The debate over same-sex “marriage” is not confined to Western Europe or North America but raged this week in parliaments, newspapers, and churches throughout the land down under.
The Anglican Archbishop of Perth, The Most Reverend Roger Herft, on Wednesday rejected a motion to recognize same-sex relationships within his archdiocese.
Archbishop Herft was responding to a motion from his diocesan synod recommending:
“That this Synod:
- Recognizes diversity within the Diocese of Perth, both in our sexual identities and in our theologies of human sexuality;
- Note the support from many within the Anglican Church for committed same-sex couples being able to register their relationships as ‘civil unions’ in Australia; and
- Acknowledges that legal recognition of committed same-sex relationships may coexist with legal recognition of marriage between a man and a woman.”
The motion was put to the diocesan synod in early October by the Rector of Darlington-Bellevue Anglican parish, the Reverend Chris Bedding. It was passed by the requisite two-thirds majority before being referred to the Archbishop for his veto or support.
In commenting on the synod’s vote, Bedding said, “As a church, we are not ready to have marriage-like ceremonies for same-sex couples in our churches yet, but we wanted to say that if the government has civil recognition of unions or equality, then we are comfortable with that.”
He was referring to the fact that neither the Western Australian Parliament nor the Federal Parliament recognises either same-sex marriage or civil unions, inviting the criticism that the push in the Anglican Synod was a politically motivated engagement.
The Archbishop confirmed this concern in a statement on October 8 that said, “For synod to endorse legislation it has not seen is fraught with difficulty.”
The Archbishop also commented that the first part of the synodal motion was ‘theologically flawed’ and ‘has serious consequences in terms of the message it proclaims.”
In closing he advised that he would make his decision later in October, which indeed he did Wednesday, saying that, “The church cannot formally accept certain behaviors.”
Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.
Two senior Australian commentators recently weighed in on the debate in discussion about the roles of the various Australian parliaments in respect to Marriage legislation. Paul Kelly, a senior journalist at the national newspaper, The Australian, under the headline “Same-sex lobby in slippery territory,” reflected on the outcome of the October Federal election and the earlier resounding defeat of same-sex legislation in the Federal Parliament.
“Contrary to much same-sex propaganda,” he wrote, “support for its cause is far more equivocal than it admits and, for many people, there is resistance to the nature of the noisy and often intimidatory same-sex campaign.”
Kelly also referred to an opinion piece by Fr. Frank Brennan, S.J., published recently in the Jesuit journal Eureka Street, in which Fr. Brennan reviews the history of the Federal marriage legislation enacted in 1961. Fr. Brennan argued that only the Federal Parliament has the jurisdiction to change marriage laws.
Fr. Brennan, who is a supporter of same-sex civil unions, calls the ACT legislation that will be shortly challenged in the High Court, a “dog’s breakfast.”
Just to give one morsel from the dog's breakfast: The long title of the Act has been amended to read: “An Act to provide for marriage equality by allowing for marriage between two adults of the same-sex, and for other purposes.” But another amendment provides a definition of marriage: “Marriage means a marriage under the Marriage Act 1961.” But the main “dictionary” definition given in the Act states that “marriage does not include a marriage within the meaning of the Marriage Act.”
So there you have it: under some provisions of the ACT Marriage Equality (same-sex) Act, marriage means a marriage under the Commonwealth Marriage Act (which excludes same-sex marriage) except presumably when it is a marriage under the ACT Marriage Equality (same-sex) Act, between two adults of the same-sex.
Both Fr. Brennan and Kelly argue against a referendum on the matter. Fr. Brennan in particular questions the wisdom of referring matters that would normally be a matter for Australia’s elected representatives in Canberra, to the Australian people: “If a referendum on same-sex marriage, why not a referendum on (say) the death penalty? If the opinion polls are right, there is no doubt the way that one would go. Or a referendum on excluding boat people from Australia? Or a referendum on euthanasia?”
“There are good reasons for avoiding the populist politics of lawmaking by direct popular vote of the people,” Fr. Brennan wrote.
Dr David van Gend, spokesman for the Australian Marriage Forum, in arguing for a referendum, said Wednesday, “I have faith in the Australian people that, faced with a choice between the demands of two men to be called a marriage and the needs of a child to have, where possible, both a mum and a dad, they will vote on behalf of the child.” This opinion is shared by many pro-family groups.
Both Brennan and Kelly argue that the Coalition government should allow a conscience vote on the issue.
Prime Minister Abbott has consistently stated that his party is bound by party policy in favor of the traditional definition of marriage, noting also that the party could re-evaluate this position. To date this has not taken place.
Meanwhile, Greens MLC, David Shoebridge stated in the New South Wales Upper House on Thursday that his party does not have a conscience vote on the issue because it is a “matter of policy, not of conscience.” That debate continues next week.
Fr. Brennan closed his article giving appropriate value to Marriage: “This remains our task, and it is best done by the Australian Parliament exercising a conscience vote rather than state and territory legislatures tinkering and then leaving the matter to the High Court.”
“Marriage is too precious a social institution to be put in the mix of a dog's breakfast,” he said.