Last weekend, our Parish Priest, Mnsgr. John Boyle, invited Dame Marie Bashir, former Governor of NSW, to attend the vigil mass to thank her for her services. A most accomplished and distinguished lady, she showed up and was duly thanked during the mass. On my part, I must confess I didn't attend. I prefer Sunday mass at 7:30 or 9:00 am.
Anyway, I digress. Dame Marie was also quoted a few days later in support of gay marriage. The article written by Jonathan Moran of The Daily Telegraph noted in part: ‘Bashir said: “I feel very much in favour and supportive of that, for people to be happy and fulfil one another. Gay marriage is the way.”
Prof. Bashir added: “I wish there wasn’t so much talk about it, you know, let’s just do it.”’
After all if one is to believe the media, the majority of Australians are in favour of “Marriage Equality”. Hence, it now follows that the Marriage Act should be changed to remove “a union between a man and a woman” to one between two persons, of any gender.
As the LGBT movement would have you believe this is a matter of equality. Really? I put to you that it is not. Maybe, the movement means “sexual equality”, hence, two men or two women as a union is the same as that of a man and a woman.
Marriage is the bedrock of the traditional family. And, marriage is the start of a family. Thus, the pro-creation of children is part of this equation. The vow made by a man and woman during the marriage ceremony is also the protection of the children that result from the union.
Going back to the “equality” issue. A man and woman in marriage can naturally have children from that union. A same-sex couple cannot do so naturally. So, the confusion (or obfuscation) that the proponents of this change in the Act are trying to achieve is to make something natural into whatever. Hey, we can adopt, do insemination, so why not?
Again, really? From the not normal, we make normal. This doesn’t follow. Natural sexual complementarity and potential fertility is not the same, just because of changing the definition of marriage.
I admit, this is politicised, so it’s a matter of pleasing the electorate.
Well, I put up a higher call.
As a Christian, I consider marriage as a sacred union, which our Lord affirmed "what therefore God has joined togther, let no man put asunder" (Mark 10:9). After all our Lord not only "restored the original order of matrimony but raised it to the dignity of a sacrament. He gave spouses special grace to live out their marriage as a symbol of Christ's love for His bride the Church". (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 341, p. 96).
And, just as important, we must not forget the consequences of re-defining marriage. Removing gender will mean that husbands and wives will be made to be wholly interchangeable social constructs. And, here’s the rub. People who adhere to the natural definition of marriage will be characterised as “old-fashioned”, "bigots", or worse.
And, they will be made to answer to the law. As well, ministers of religion will be made to heel to the new definition and required to go against beliefs and teachings that their church has propounded for centuries. And, maybe end up in jail, as a consequence.
Note that this is not alarmism or muddying the waters. Look at other countries and you will see that these consequences are real, the Culture of Life Foundation article posted about this possibility in 2014. This is unfortunately now a fact and is manifesting itself in a number of countries, where the preaching against same-sex marriage is regarded as hate speech.
I read about clergy in Holland, France and Spain that have already been threatened with prosecution for “hate speech” for upholding their faith tradition on marriage.
Let's not forget that this change in the Act is the thin edge of the wedge. Taking the precedent, polygamous marriages have been permitted in Brazil. I also read about an incident in Holland where authorities were asked to allow polygamy, extending the equality thinking. There is also a push using equality and the new marriage definition to allow polygamy in other countries.
These are only some examples of the consequences of changing the Act. There are more, if you care to look into it further.
Another thought is the children in same-sex marriage. Is this a normal environment for children? I am sure that there are or probably have been normal adults growing from childhood in a home with same-sex parents.
However, the story of Katy Faust also comes to mind. She grew up in a home with same-sex parents and wrote a letter to Justice Kennedy of the US Supreme Court (equivalent to our High Court in Australia). Father John Flader includes her story in his latest post in defence of traditional marriage, as well as put forward more interesting points.
There are more considerations as to why we should stick with the current definition of marriage. I will just make one more point.
Finally, changing the Act will really only benefit a few. Mind you, a very vocal few. It is not about changing an age-old definition, but to quiet that minority who will benefit from this change. My thinking is so that they can now say “will you marry me?” instead of “will you civil union me?” Not a good enough reason to change not just traditional beliefs, but also Christian teaching and the bedrock of the unit of society that is under attack—the family.
Let's leave what has worked for centuries alone and not redefine something just to please a few and cause many things we may not have considered. Let's keep marriage a sacred (read solemn, if you prefer) union between a man and a woman.
