Australian Religious Leaders Who Support Same-Sex Marriage

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

So given that the weekly/fortnightly topic is "Morality, Ethics, Religion & the Family", I thought I'd mention some political activity I've been doing in the past week and will continue to do so next week.

After work I've been going through the laborious task of finding clergy and religious celebrants who support same-sex marriage and encouraging them to agree to a statement that states that the current Federal government legislation is an act of religious discrimination. Because if same-sex unions are allowed - as they are - with all the equivalent rights as marriage then the only thing that is missing is marriage itself. Why not? Because that's considered a particular domain of religion. And there seems to be an unwritten rule in Australian politics that religious leaders are all theocratically-inclined conservatives. I hope, through an informal group called the Victorian Secular Lobby, to break that assumption.

Calling for registered celebrants and clergy I now have several Unitarian-Universalists, several from the Uniting Church (that's an Australian oddity - a combination of Methodists, Presbyterians and Congregationalists), a Baptist, a Hindu and coming real soon, some clerks and celebrants from the Religious Society of Friends (i.e. Quakers). I should add there's an election coming up and a 'National Day of Action' for same-sex marriage rights.

So this is my pitch on morality, ethics, religion and the family. Morality to me means establishing principles of interaction; treating others like you would like to be treated by others. Ethics to me involves the contextual application of morals, and in this case finding religious support for same-sex marriage. Religion, well, that's the situation. And family? Well, I guess I have a liberal view of that; to me it can mean households...

Comments

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

They're dealing with it upside-down though, I tell ya.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

It's true. We'll get gay divorce approved before gay marriage.

[smellslikecheez.livejournal.com]

the problem isnt that the government wont recognise gay marriage, its that they will recognise heterosexual marriage.
marriage should be a social arrangement, not a legal one.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

A former regular poster here airiefairie argued "civil unions for all, marriages if you can get one", essentially saying that it should be up to individual religions to decide whether you can get married; the legal standard should be the civil union.

However I don't see any states engaging in a rush to get rid of marriage, so it the meantime this is the best possible option.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

The problems is that the rights associated with CU's <> rights associated w/ marriages.

If the push was to give CU's the same legal status as is conferred via marriage, I suspect there would be a similar fight, albeit with different language.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

The problems is that the rights associated with CU's <> rights associated w/ marriages.

Sometimes, and not where I am. Indeed it is becoming quite a fashion among some heterosexual couples to have a civil union where the historical baggage associated with marriage is sufficiently annoying. Plus it's a nice act of solidarity with homosexual couples...

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

I think this (http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/154634.html) is the post you were looking for.

And she's not a 'former' regular poster. She's still a regular poster, only she's on a long vacation right now.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Ah. The still unbeaten Longest Thread post.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Only 715 is the longest thread? Hmmm, a challenge, that is.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Multiple people have said that they agree with that, apparently not enough have the will to actually try to push for it.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Not yet. Establishing equality within government-sanctioned unions has somewhat higher priority.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

It's the wrong equality though. Having gov't only do civil unions and not marriages at all is also equality, and a better one overall.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

I don't understand why they don't simply allow civil unions to have the same legal precedents as marriage. That would seem to be the best way to satisfy everyone.