Bishop John

Margaret Somerville,

“SAME-SEX marriage creates a clash between upholding the human rights of children with respect to their coming into being and the family structure in which they will be reared, and the claims of homosexual adults who wish to marry a same-sex partner.

“It forces us to choose between giving priority to children’s rights or to homosexual adults’ claims.

“Opposite sex marriage does not raise this conflict, because children’s rights and adults’ claims with respect to marriage are consistent. I oppose discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and support legalising civil partnerships. But, I also believe that marriage should remain defined as being between a man and a woman.

“My reasons go to the nature of marriage as the societal institution that symbolises and protects the inherently reproductive relationship that exists between a man and a woman and, thereby, establishes children’s human rights regarding their biological origins and the family structure in which they are reared. . . .

“In conclusion, legalising same-sex marriage would be a very powerful statement against the horrible wrong of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. We clearly need such statements. But, in order to uphold the human rights of children, they should be made in other ways than legalising same-sex marriage.”

Excellent full article, It’s all about the children, not selfish adults

Australian-Canadian ethicist Margaret Somerville is Samuel Gale professor of law, professor in the faculty of medicine, and founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University, Montreal.

I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer to my question: Marriage: Why not a threesome? – And, “Yes” it is relevant. Polygamy is alive and well and if we allow same-sex couples the right to marrage why would we not approve of the love between polygamist familiy units the privilege of marraige?

See,  Marriage: Why not a threesome?  and  Gay advocate: Don’t call it marriage  and  Definition of Marriage: Letter responses from Australian politicians;  and  Tasmanian Labour Conference backs same-sex marriage.

Also,

“Someone else’s child is not a ”cure” for infertility, and no one, whether gay,  straight, single, married, young or old, should be entitled to such a child –  despite current thinking to the contrary –  especially when that child’s own  human rights are ignored. The only circumstance in which this ought to happen is  when  the child has continuing contact with their donor parent.”

Read more: Our selfish creation of human life  and I am grateful that in the circumstances Senator Wong and her partner are intending to do this for the IVF child her partner is carrying, Penny Wong and gay partner expecting baby.

Below is an excerpt from a helpful article regarding the issue of  ‘bullying’ from the Head of the Senior School at The Hutchins School, Duncan Warlters:

In her research, Cross (2009) indicates that cyberbullying occuring online is in the form of emails, internet messages, text messages, using others’ passwords, posting pictures on the web, pictures on mobile phones, exclusion on the web and sending viruses.  It is also interesting to note from the research that boys are more inclined than girls to ignore the bullying, ask the bully to stop or turn off/block the bully. These are the most appropriate and best methods of dealing with cyberbullying. There is also a need to report it to parents, the carriage provider or even the school.

In the Senior School, mentors have been asked to discuss the role, importance and obligation of bystanders to be more active when they see bullying occurring.

To see the rest of the insightful article and other helpful links click here

Also from Hutchins, Cybersafety Watch.

“Definition of Marriage” – Responses to the letter I sent to several federal politicians regarding the Synod of the Anglican Church of  Tasmania’s resolution regarding the definition of marriage:

Dear …. ,

Definition of Marriage

I write on behalf of Tasmania’s Anglican community regarding the Definition of Marriage.

The Synod meeting in June confirmed its commitment to the definition of marriage under Commonwealth law, that is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life.

I would ask that you bring this resolution of the Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Tasmania to your deliberations on this issue.

Yours sincerely

John D Harrower OAM

Bishop of Tasmania

Here are some responses I have received thus far:

• The Hon Tony Abbott MHR (Leader of the Opposition)

• Senator Catryna Bilyk (Labor Senator for Tasmania)

• Senator Lisa Singh (Labor Senator for Tasmania)

• Nick McKim MP (Greens Leader, Member for Franklin)

• Senator Nick Sherry (Labor Senator for Tasmania)

• Senator Bob Brown (Greens Senator for Tasmania)

• Senator Eric Abetz (Liberal Senator for Tasmania)

• Senator Anne Urquhart (Labor Senator for Tasmania)

• Senator Helen Polley (Labor Senator for Tasmania)

• Will Hodgman MP (Leader of the Opposition in Tasmania)

• Senator Stephen Parry (Liberal Senator for Tasmania)

• Julie Collins (Labor Member for Franklin)

• The Hon Robert McClelland MP (Attorney General)

• Senator Christine Milne (Greens Senator for Tasmania)

No one has the right to switch off a human life… I should know: One woman’s story of being locked inside her own body

A long but important comment from an absolutely outstanding article that is a “must read.” It’s a long article, so I have just copied the following:

Should you or I fall ill tonight and find ourselves, as I once did, unable to speak or move or cry, the danger of someone making the decision to end our lives for us would be greater than ever before. For death has been given a facelift. We are encouraged to think of it as a gentle walk down a white corridor to a beautiful place. We hear talk of dignity in death, as if there were no dignity to be had in a life that is not the one of an able and productive person. And while the law seems willing to bend and flex to this point of view, who speaks for those who cannot speak for themselves? Who considers whether the ‘options’ of life or death look rather different from a patient’s point of view?

I believe that every life that ends at Dignitas (assisted suicide facility), and every dependent patient who is ‘allowed to die’ by starvation, erodes my right to live. It normalises this kind of death, and it sanitises what is an abhorrent practice. In order to label this practice as something other than what it is — killing — the law has been fudged and euphemisms applied.

Death through the withdrawal of food and water is not a gentle walk down a white corridor. It is, according to a doctor friend, about as painful and unpleasant an end as one can imagine. We would not subject an animal to it.

It is possible that many of those who have died this way have suffered extreme anxiety, burning sensations all over their bodies, and searing pain in their kidneys that even the strongest medication can do nothing to ease. And yet, this is the death that more and more believe is the ‘dignified’ way to go.

And what about those who are left behind? Do we really believe that gradual desensitisation to killing has no impact on the rest of society?

By creating a world in which death happens whenever it is deemed convenient, are we not gradually erasing what was once an important part of our life experience? The experience of death itself: the natural loss of our loved ones, no matter how long and difficult the journey to the end may be.

A good and dignified death is not determined by schedules, budgets or the patience of a third party, it is one that teaches us the most about the realities of love and life. 

Read more: No one has the right to switch off a human life… I should know: One woman’s story of being locked inside her own body  and a further testimony from a long term sufferer opposing assisted suicide/ euthanasia, this time from Australia, No dignity in euthanasia.

A recent letter I have written to Prime Minister Julia Gillard thanking her for her Government’s funding of the national School Chaplaincy program:

Dear Prime Minister,

Funding for School Chaplains

I write on behalf of Tasmania’s Anglican community regarding Federal Government funding for School Chaplains.

The Synod of the Diocese of Tasmania met last month in Launceston gathering together some 175 delegates from around our island state. This is an annual meeting where matters of concern are debated and legislation approved for the good order of the Anglican community.

The Synod passed a motion requesting the Bishop of Tasmania to write to the Prime Minister expressing thanks to the Federal Government for its ongoing and increased funding of the School Chaplaincy Program.

The Synod also asked me to pass on to you its thanks for your government’s defence of the legal challenge to the validity of the School Chaplaincy funding in the High Court of Australia.

Yours in appreciation,

John D Harrower OAM

Bishop of Tasmania

Response of behalf of Prime Minister Gillard:

The Hon Peter Garrett AM MP (Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth)