But is it the Same?

October 27 , 2006

High Court Justice, Mr Justice Kirby, has called for legislation to legalize homosexual marriages in Australia. A few days earlier a West Australian parliamentarian also called for the legalization of homosexual partnerships by allowing same sex marriages. The ACT has announced plans to reintroduce laws, quashed by the Commonwealth earlier this year, to allow for civil partnerships between gay and lesbian couples. I suspect the ACT Government is using this to create a smoke screen to cover their appalling financial mismanagement which has led to the closure of an incredible thirty-two schools, and desperate situations in Canberra s hospitals.

The Australian Attorney General, the Hon. Phillip Ruddock, has stated that among the Australian public in general there is neither a demand nor a desire for such legislation. He is absolutely correct. In fact, my correspondence is exactly the opposite  the general public are totally opposed to same sex marriages, and in fact do not regard such liaisons are the equivalent to marriage in any sense.

Re-writing the definition of marriage does not just change one law, it changes everything. The legal term marriage permeates every sphere of law: taxes, education, and employment. These laws in turn regulate religious institutions and para-church organizations like schools, hospitals, child-care facilities, disability services, aged care facilities, nursing homes and so on.

There are currently court cases over Christian child-care organizations that have refused to provide children brought for care to same sex couples, as they do not constitute a marriage or a family.

In Massachusetts, U.S.A. where same-sex marriage  is the law, Roman Catholic Child care agencies announced that they would no longer serve as an adoption agencies. Why not? Because by Massachusetts law, organizations that place children for adoption must have a state license. And organizations with state licenses may not discriminate against same-sex couples.

So Catholic Charities had to choose: Either obey the law and violate the teachings of the Catholic Church, or get out of the adoption business altogether. It wisely chose the latter.

Charles Colson indicates that in California, Governor Schwarzenegger signed a bill into law that makes it illegal for any non-profit organization receiving state funds to portray homosexual or bisexual practices in a negative light so much for preaching from the pulpit about homosexuality being a sin.

Religious colleges have also been forced to extend married housing to same-sex couples. Employees who voice dissent over practices that promote the homosexual lifestyle may risk censure or loss of employment, as did a 63-year-old Muslim employee of William Paterson University in New Jersey. He called homosexuality a perversion. 

And even in cases where the government can t compel faith-based groups to affirm homosexuality, it can punish defiant organizations by banning them from using public facilities.

There is no injustice against homosexuals, because the legal rights for lesbian and homosexual males who live together are guaranteed if and when the relationship breaks up, in the event of death or in the rights of wills.

Like it or not, the questions surrounding same-sex marriage  and special rights for homosexuals are going to force us to deal with religious freedom issues even what we can preach about from the pulpit. That s why we must ask candidates this election where they stand on these issues and let them know what matters to us. Same sex marriages are not the same!