SSM = Same sex marriage Background: Watching ABC news this morning I was subject to some guy talking about how the legislative acceptance of ssm would lead to infringement of religious freedoms. This concern seems to be a frequent, if not chief, criticism raised by opponents of same sex marriage at the moment. This argument essentially involves the assertion that the introduction of same ssm will pave the way for other laws that infringe the freedom of religious institutions to discriminate and arbitrarily determine who can be a member of their community and the values they must adhere to. My assertion: In my opinion, the argument actually has some merit - I do think this outcome is likely. HOWEVER, whilst I in no way think ssm alone does, should or inherently will lead to such laws, it appears to me that given the context and climate in which our ssm laws are finally being implemented - through a fiscally irresponsible, unpopular, unnecessary and convoluted "survey" process - religious institutions that have created such a setting for change have laid the ground work for further laws to follow which will infringe on the rights of religious institutions. In this way, I believe religious institutions will be harmed by this change into the future - and they have only themselves to blame. My brief explanation: It seems to me that the "defenders" of these religious institutions have, for decades in this country, created a political weapon in which they claim to protect their rights by infringing those of a social minority. They have applied this weapon of state power arbitrarily across the entirety of the general public and have justified such policy on the basis of subjective religious values derived from nothing more than 'faith.' It seems to me that now the tide has simply turned and instead of reforging this weapon into a lasting, logical form of tolerant civil liberties that maintains the rule of law, they have instead clasped to this cudgel of legal power with every dying breadth. The result seems to me that the legacy of hate and scorn created by these institutions will inevitably be turned against them to, as it where, ensure they die by their own swords. The day looks fast approaching that advocates of progressive reform today will be soon inclined to replace religious notions of hypocrisy with their own - "how can individuals (gay, in this case) be truly free if religious groups can be left to freely discriminate against them?" I should add that I am a staunch advocate of the right for private community organisations, whether organised religions or otherwise, to discriminate IN EVERY CONCEIVABLE WAY among consenting members of their organisations. Such institutions should have the right to choose the people and values they introduce into the boundaries of their collective spiritual lives. The problem is these institutions have not extended the same courtesy to individuals with same sex attraction within the boundaries of their own personal lives, external to these institutions. By so bitterly maintaining this hypocrisy have they sown the seeds of their own destruction? Unfortunately for the rule of law, I believe so - they will reap what they have sown.
Interesting read. I am not sure whether the actual religious institutions themselves will be at risk, but perhaps their sideline businesses may. Take Catholic education as an example. Only a couple of decades ago you would be excluded from these schools if you were from another denomination. Due to financial situations you now no longer need to be of Catholic faith to attend their institutions. If this is the case and they have a predilection to suspend their beliefs for financial gain, will this open them to future legal action as education is seen as a civil service and therefore not under the same protective umbrella as the religious institution itself? I have always seen the SSM argument as a civil argument. Religion and sexual orientation really has no merit as an argument in my opinion. For one we are not a Theocracy and secondly do we really want to live in a society where a section of that society who are law abiding and live under the same community values as we all do, are denied the same basic civil rights that the rest of us come to expect? Do we? This is an argument regarding civil rights, nothing more, nothing less. Don't make the mistake of believing it is anything but. This is a basic civil right, the same as religious freedom. If you believe you are better than another fellow Australian and deserve better civil treatment than them. Then you should vote NO. However be very careful because next time it may be your civil rights that are denied. If you believe this is indeed a religious argument then also ask yourself why you have appointed yourself God to sit in condemnation of a fellow human being. He will make his own decision when the time comes and certainly does not need you help. I say people need to tidy their own backyards before they take a rake to someone elses. I think it is pretty clear where I stand on this
Just read through my post and it may read like I am having a shot at Megadeath. I wasn't. It was merely an argument for SSM and pointed at general readership not the OP.
Since this is in the AUS section, I assume its related to religious institutions in AUS. First, how have religious institutions in AUS forced their views on everyone? You claim religious institutions have "applied this weapon of state power arbitrarily across the entirety of the general public". Exactly what have they done? That claim has been made in the USA, but there is little to substantiate it. Examples are "blue laws", which up until about 50 years ago meant stores had to close on Sunday and today are little more than restrictions on alcohol sales in a few states. With respect to ssm, in the USA there were barriers but they were not solely the result of religious institutions "wielding some weapon arbitrarily". SSM was wildly unpopular in the general public up until 20 years ago, it was a cultural attitude. And as the recent issues of transgender bathrooms have shown, homosexuality is still marginally accepted. Second, in the USA, ssm is already being used to infringe on religious freedom. Since the supreme court has decided ssm is a "right", gay activists have already started attacking churches who refuse to perform ssm. In the USA, the threat is not ssm itself, ssm is simply the tool that certain groups will use to attack (the goal being the elimination of) religious organizations. Third, in the USA, there are 2 types of "marriage": Civil marriage, which is a legal contract recognized by the govt and allows eligibility for govt welfare and services and tax benefits as well as divorce issues and also brings legal responsibilities; and the much less formal religious or personal marriage which is between 2 people or 2 people and their god/church/community. Since the religious marriage does not involve the govt, the govt should have no role in it. A church can believe ssm is a sin and not perform them, or can believe the opposite and perform ssm. People can join whatever church they want to join, or join none. But in the USA, we have seen for the past 10 years that the gay activists are not interested gaining civil ssm, they want to impose their values (or lack of values depending upon your perspective) on everyone.
The religious institutions whining are being very precious and using a specious argument. They seem to be arguing slippery slope. What they should have is a constitutional guarantee to be able to practice their religion without contravening secular laws. I think what they want is to be insulated from secular laws. Not going to happen. No religion should be able to flout secular laws. None. If marriage is re-defined under Commonwealth legislation then that's that. Religious institutions are and should be free to refuse to marry people where the marriage would be against the teaching and practices of the faith. I have no problem with that. Religious institutions don't get to make legislation, that's the job of the legislators. Sure they can protest but that's it. And have no illusions that there are quite a number of MPs who are against SSM on religious grounds. They should be permitted to stand up and cross the floor in conscience vote. Then their electors can choose whether or not to support them next time around.
Yep, but in many respects it probably applies to most other countries. By promoting laws that do this, ie retaining a religiously derived conception of marriage rather than a logical idea of what interference the state should have with respect to partnerships. Promoted an ideology in which a zero sum game is played. Either the laws conform to religious values or religion will be destroyed - that has been their declaration since day one. Instead they should have said 'let the state govern our common affairs in a rational manner and let individuals take care of their own' - like letting people voluntarily marry who they want since it only affects those immediately involved. By creating a zero sum game, fueled by hatred and bigotry they have set up a tradition of legal reform that will bite them in the ass. That is exactly my point. They have promoted a cultural attitude to maintain prejudicial laws through popular support. Now that that popular support has changed against these institutions, they're staring down the barrel of their own gun imo. Once again, this is exactly my point. Religious institutions should have defended themselves through rational argument, which would also require gay rights. Instead they chose the bigot route and they are reaping what they have sown now that the tide of public opinion has turned against them. This is sort of veering away from the OP, with respect to US law. I completely agree. Yes but I'd argue they have engaged in such a pursuit because the same oppression has been systematically and violently placed upon them with the overt and profound support of religious institutions. They set themselves up as the oppressors of gay activists in a zero sum game that time has ensured they will lose. I dont think the infringement on religious institutions is right - I just think its something that will happen bc these institutions were too blind to see the forces they unleashed could be used against them at some point in the future - and that time has come.
I completely agree, but do you think the zero sum game they have set up has secured a future for law reform in which religious freedoms for institutions will be infringed?
I can't address the AUS experience, but as you say the USA experience is probably comparable. There are larger social issues - traditional marriage vs gay marriage vs single parent family etc. It does not just affect the 2 people getting married. Look at the last 10 years in the USA and the social and business and legal upheaval all just to accommodate a small group of homosexuals with extreme demands. In the USA, objection to non-traditional marriage and family structure has included the larger social aspects, not just on religious grounds. A lot of pro-ssm people like to frame this subject in terms of the individual (individual rights) partly to avoid the larger social questions. I'm going to reverse your claim that religion brought this on themselves. You make 2 major assumptions which in the USA is not accurate - you assume that the gay activists would accept a "live and let live" attitude, and you assume that Christianity (not all religion, gays don't seem to care about most religions, not even islam which does literally kill gays) has always been at active war with gays. First, why do gays target Christianity? The fight started in the late 1980's and really took off in the 1990's. Homosexuality was not accepted at that time, and it is still not really accepted - it is tolerated as long as it does not impact people personally, as long as people can go about their lives and families as they always have, but when it hits "home" there is huge resistance (as the transgender bathroom issue showed). Gays cannot fight 95% of the population, they need a target that will not alienate the masses, will make the gays look like victims, will not have a response that will resonate with the masses, and will make a good foil for presenting the gay argument. That target was originally "fundamentalist Christianity", which the gays portrayed as backwards people inconsistent with the modern world. Gays engaged in a well thought out political and PR plan to implement their agenda, including using the media (tv sitcoms) to portray gays in a positive light and anti-gays as religious nut cases (reference After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's). After 30 years, their plan worked to an extent. The gays have ssm, and have gained special legal protected status. At the same time, they have convinced themselves and many others that religion is a backwards concept inconsistent with the modern world and religious people are nutcases. The result: gays have a deep hatred of Christianity, blame it for all their problems, and have no qualms about trampling over religious freedoms. And other people have taken on that attitude. Now, there can be no live and let live. Some saw the writing on the wall 20 years ago, that led to items such as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA, passed in 1996) and California Prop 8 (passed by popular vote in 2008 ). Note these were after the gay activists implemented their plan (or war, crusade, even jihad). They were in response to the gay attack.
I point out one thing that brings higher concern for religious groups. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ves-demand-Christmas-carols-stay-schools.html Now forgive me for pointing the stupidity of this but this is an Australian education department trying to ban singing Christmas carols is school because it is religious. Christmas is a religious event... You wonder why your education system is completely inept when this comes from the top. However, the point is that people who want to project different perception of themselves as tolerant or accepting go well out of their way, even to the point of demonstrating to the world just how stupid they can be, by pushing an agenda that is completely unexpected.
I trust not. Well they'd bloody well not want to try. I'm not religious but I do respect others' beliefs and their right to practise their religion. Just as long as it doesn't breach secular laws. One that might be up for a look is the confessional in the RC Church. Now that is going to be difficult. And frankly I don't know yet where I stand on it.
Yes yes yes, I am more than happy with the result, there is still hope that we become a more open and understanding/respectful nation. Great day for Australia, great day for all of us........ Regards
