The Mercury front page today reads “Green light for gay marriage” referencing Nick McKim’s motion being tabled in parliament calling for in-principle support for what he calls “Marriage Equality.”
I have responded with a media release.
You may want to vote in the Webpoll at the Mercury, voting no to the redefinition of marriage.
Also, Gay advocate: Don’t call it marriage and Marriage: Why not a threesome?
I agree with the Bishop’s media release. Marriage is defined legally in the marriage act – but also in the scriptures as a relationship between a and a woman who leave, cleave and become one flesh – in Biblical times this was celebrated by community events and rites but the state of marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman.
Later on in the piece – the government took the view that marriage was a contract that exists between a man and a woman – not unlike a business contract – but it was still between a man and a woman. To make it anything other changes the meaning of a well defined term. It is like defining potatoes as apples!
This issue is going to be fiery on both sides. The populist view of Gay rights will vilify anyone one who has an opposing view no matter how sincere that view might be. I have been looking at this issue for years and have been called many names because I cannot get to the same place as the populist view – and there seems to be no understanding for those who have a compassionately reasoned Biblically based view that will not agree with the populists.
Like other matters, those wanting to move forward without real debate and discussion on the subject dismiss contrary points of view as being sceptical, unacceptable, unreasonable, or vilifying. The fact that someone come to a reasoned and compassionate conclusion outside of the populist’s view is unheard of.
For those who also disagree with the populist view – take heart your view is important and you have the right express it within the context of public debate.