Marriage Debate: How SSM leads to 'special rights'

May 5, 2008 by

From IMAPP I’ve been corresponding with some people who complained to me that people like myself who want to keep the present definition of marriage are abridging their rights. I’ve been responding that same-sex marriage advocates are actually the ones limiting people’s rights. In Boston, if your church has a deeply held moral belief that children need both a mother and a father, and you want to help parents adopt, you are required to either violate your principles or to stop helping children find loving families. That’s what gay "marriage" has wrought in the first state to fall victim to tyrannical judges and selfish gay activists. Virtually everyone agrees that the real victims of the shut-down of the highly praised Catholic adoption service in Boston are poor orphans of color. But the gay community literally doesn’t care. Being celebrated and stroked as "equal" is far more important to them than the welfare of abandoned, abused, and impoverished children. If LGBT people want to help gay parents adopt, I’m all for it. Let them set up their own adoption agencies and heck, give preference to lipstick lesbians and reject all show tune queens. Or let the show tune queens adopt and tell the lipstick lesbians they’re not butch enough. I don’t care. Each group should be allowed to behave consistently with its values as long as they’re not hurting anybody. But no – the gays convinced the government to demand that Catholics either embrace gay and lesbian values they think are wrong, or face civil and criminal penalties if they dare employ Catholic values in bringing a smile to the faces of underprivileged children who have no one to tuck them in at night. And gays squeal when people say they want "special rights." But they do. What’s more special than being able to arrange for a child’s adoption based on your value system – one that happens to be at most one or two generations old, whereas the Catholic Church with its centuries of tradition is forced to violate its principles if it wants to rescue abandoned children. Boy, those Massachusetts gays really sound like admirable people. Let’s throw them a parade! Oh, never mind. They already throw themselves...

read more

Gay marriage does not work – men are just too predatory, says Pete Burns

May 4, 2008 by

From The Daily Mail When he flashed his engagement ring on the sofa with Richard and Judy, pop star Pete Burns told of his happiness at the prospect of becoming the latest celebrity to marry his male partner. But now, just ten months after the big day, the singer has split from Michael Simpson, saying civil partnerships do not work and that he was happier being married to a woman. Burns, 49, who was wed to stylist Lynne Corlett for 28 years, said gay relationships were a "commercial break" compared with the "full movie" of marriage. He also claimed there were too much "promiscuity" in the gay community for civil partnerships to thrive. Burns followed in the footsteps of Sir Elton John and Little Britain star Matt Lucas in using the new civil partnership laws to announce his public devotion to his lover. He dressed as a geisha girl in a kimono for the ceremony in London on July 7 last year. He told The Mail on Sunday he had been "optimistic" about his civil partnership, but now he says: "I learned the hard way. It’s a total joke." Burns accused Simpson, 40, of being unfaithful and admitted he felt disillusioned. Burns added that some gay couples had "open marriages" where the partners could be unfaithful. He said: "There’s a lot of promiscuity in the gay community. I don’t understand why they take that union. How low is their self-esteem? "One’s on Hampstead Heath meeting men, the other one’s hiring rent boys. "Surely marriage is throwing anchor and saying, ‘This is where I’m staying, I’ve made my choice and this is all I want because I’ve been on the up and down escalator, through the revolving door and I want to stand still.’ That’s what I expected." He added: "I don’t know what goes on in many heterosexual marriages but I know mine was 28 years. As far as I was concerned that was for ever, and it would have been, but she needed to find her own life. "She was the best ‘husband’ I ever had. You sometimes meet a person who you completely love. We’re still really, really close. It’s not about sexuality, it’s about the person." Since the Civil Partnership Act came into force in December 2005, there have been 18,000 gay marriages in Britain. Burns said: "I view marriage as a sacred institution. I think two men naturally are predators. Gay relationships are a commercial break, not a whole movie. "The relationships I’m aware of, apart from one … it’s as though there’s some kind of emotional inadequacy or narcissism, where they feel emotionally inadequate and need more validation, from either a father figure or a mirror image of themselves. "I’m not condemning it, I think it needs researching and help." Burns and his band Dead Or Alive had a No1 hit with You Spin Me Round in 1985, but his career went into decline until he went on Celebrity Big Brother in 2006. He...

read more

Archbishop Peter Jensen discusses same-sex law changes

May 1, 2008 by

From The World Today Reporter: Ashley Hall ELEANOR HALL: The Archbishop of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church, Dr Peter Jensen, is one of the country’s most vocal opponents of gay marriage. A short time ago I asked him for his reaction to the Federal Government’s plans. PETER JENSEN: Well first of all we welcome the Government’s clear and firm determination to make sure that what ever happens this is not about marriage. And I think that’s been made very clear and it won’t extend to marriage. Marriage is between a man and a women and I think that’s an excellent that the Government has made clear. In regard to the other changes, personally I remain concerned about the impact of the gay lifestyle on our community. And I don’t believe any of us should be forced to accept it. But on the other hand I think too that there were various injustices that did need to be attended to. We haven’t seen the details, we don’t know how far this extends. But there are relationships in which there is some discrimination in our laws, and that needs to be attended to. Mind you I think it’s not just gay relationships. So I’d see, I hope this is not just pro-gay, so to speak but pro-people. ELEANOR HALL: Are you comfortable that a homosexual relationship will now be treated in the same way as a de facto heterosexual relationship? PETER JENSEN: Well I don’t think that the recognition is the same. I think there will be points at which such a relationship will benefit from the changes. But I don’t, as I understand it, we’re not dealing here with something that mimics marriage. And that’s the key point. What I’d like to see it is extended to people in other sorts of relationships, which are non-sexual, in order to make sure there’s justice for all Australians. ELEANOR HALL: What sort of relationships are you talking about? PETER JENSEN: Well there could be two friends living together, on a long standing basis over many years. It’s not a sexual relationship, but it is a relationship. And they support and strengthen each other, there’d be many Christian people living like that. And I think that sort of thing could also be recognised. ELEANOR HALL: Many members of Australia’s gay community welcome the move but they still want gay marriage to be legalised. Why are you so opposed to that? PETER JENSEN: Well I think it’s impossible. That is to say, I think marriage, this is not a matter of government (inaudible). We can’t simply say, oh by the way marriage is different now. Marriage is between a man and a women and the Government is determined to recognise that basic fact. Let there be relationships between people and even of a sexual nature is not a thing again, but I think it will damage our community if we don’t recognise the basic facts of our human existence. ELEANOR HALL: In...

read more

Marriage and the Family: Elderly sisters told they can't have the same tax rights as gays

Apr 30, 2008 by

Joyce and Sybil Burden may have to sell their home. 29 April 2008, Christian Institute  Two elderly sisters have lost their battle to enjoy the same tax benefits as same-sex couples who register for civil partnerships. Joyce Burden, 90, and her sister Sybil, 82, have lived together in the same house for years, caring for older family members and now for one another. Concerned that when one of them dies the other will have to sell the house to cover inheritance duties, the sisters have campaigned for decades to have their relationship treated like a marriage for the purposes of tax law. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 allows same-sex couples to register as civil partners, exempting them from inheritance tax. However, the Act prevents partnerships from being registered between close relatives. Before the law was passed it was argued by The Christian Institute and others that it ought to be extended to allow long-term cohabiting family members to register as civil partners, in the same way as same-sex couples. This would have made civil partnerships fairer and less like ‘gay marriage’. The Institute placed a full-page advert in The Times newspaper in 2004 arguing for this (see the advert). The plan was supported by 84 per cent of the public, and an amendment to include it in the new law was accepted by the House of Lords, but defeated in the Commons. Following the introduction of the Act without the provision for family members, the Burdens decided to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights. They claimed that the Government was discriminating against them unfairly by withholding from them the tax rights now available to same-sex civil partners. The case was referred to the Grand Chamber of the European Court, comprising 17 judges. The Grand Chamber ruled that the sisters could not be compared with a married or Civil Partnership Act couple, and so no discrimination had taken place. Joyce Burden said: "If we were lesbians we would have all the rights in the world. But we are sisters and it seems we have no rights at all."...

read more

Archbishop Jensen welcomes Federal Government’s no on ‘gay marriage’

Apr 30, 2008 by

The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Peter Jensen, has welcomed the Federal Government’s clear statement on same-sex relationships – which promises there will be no ‘homosexual marriage’ – and the accompanying changes to 100 federal laws regarding superannuation and other benefits. “We welcome the Government’s clear and firm determination to make sure that whatever happens this is not about marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman and it is excellent that the Government has made that clear.” Dr Jensen says “Personally I remain concerned about the impact of the gay lifestyle on our community and I don’t believe any of us should be forced to accept it. But I also think there may be injustices which need attention.” The Archbishop says it’s not yet clear how far the changes will extend, but says the superannuation and benefits arrangements should be granted to other types of relationships, which are non-sexual, so that the changes are “not just pro-gay but pro-people.” “Marriage is not a matter of government fiat. We can’t simply say, because some people want it, that marriage is different now. Marriage is between a man and a woman and I’m pleased the Government seems determined to recognise that basic fact.” – by Russell Powell at SydneyAnglicans.net From Anglican Church League...

read more

Was Canadian same-sex marriage a mistake?

Apr 17, 2008 by

Michael Coren on Canada’s biggest mistake: Gay marriage For National Post What makes the national mistake of legalizing same-sex marriage unique in Canadian history is that to even discuss the issue is considered by many, particularly our elites, to be at the very least in extraordinarily bad taste. Although this is a valid and vital debate about social policy, anyone critiquing the status quo is likely to be marginalized as hateful, extreme or simply mad. Social conservatives aren’t just wrong, they’re evil. The discussion, we are told, is over. Which is what triumphalist bullies have said for centuries after they win a battle. In this case, the intention is to marginalize anyone who dares to still speak out. In other words, to silence them. It’s important to emphasize that this is not really about homosexuality at all, and has nothing to do with homosexual people living together. Opponents of same-sex marriage may have ethical and religious objections to homosexuality, but they are irrelevant to the central argument. Which is not about the rights of a sexual minority but the status and meaning of marriage. Indeed, the deconstruction of marriage began not with the gay community asking for the right to marry but with the heterosexual world rejecting it. The term “common-law marriage” said it all. Marriage is many things, but it is never common. Yet with this semantic and legal revolution, desire and convenience replaced commitment and dedication. The qualifications, so to speak, were lowered. And one does indeed have to qualify for marriage; just as one has, for example, to qualify for a pension or a military medal. People who have not reached the age of retirement don’t qualify for a pension, people who don’t serve in the armed forces don’t qualify for a military medal. It’s not a question of equality but requirement. A human right is intrinsic, a social institution is not. The four great and historic qualifications for marriage always have been number, gender, age and blood. Two people, male and female, over a certain age and not closely related. Mainstream and responsible societies have sometimes changed the age of maturity, but incest has always been condemned and, by its nature, died out because of retardation. As for polygamy, it’s making something of a comeback — and here begin the objections. Whenever this is mentioned by critics of same-sex marriage we are accused of using the slippery-slope argument. Sorry, some slopes are slippery. Polygamy is an ancient tradition within Islam — and was in Sephardic Judaism and some Asian cultures. When the precedent of gay marriage is combined with the freedom of religion defence, the courts will have a difficult time rejecting it. At the moment, the Muslim community is not sufficiently politically comfortable to pursue the issue; and the clearly deranged polygamous sects on the aesthetic as well as geographical fringes of Canadian society cloud any reasonable debate. But the argument will certainly come and the result is largely inevitable. If love is the...

read more