I am continually astonished that in a world of potentially catastrophic climate change, a world with how many wars raging, a world in which the economic system is under threat and perhaps falling apart, in this world the prime-time and politically defining debate in Australia is to do or not to do same sex marriage.
A very disappointing priority.

Dear halduell,

Are you maintaining we shouldn't consider the issue at all? Are you disappointed that you can't constrain parliament to consider only the issues that you find important?

Political parties have platforms which they put forth before elections. I think pols should vote on matters contained in the platform as the platform dictates. I also think all other votes should be according to the conscience of the parliamentarian informed by the wishes of the constituency and the good of Australia and the world.

It is only a mystery if one still perceives the LNP as a 'liberal' party. It hasn't been such since the advent of the Howard years and beyond

David f

'Political parties have platforms which they put forth before elections.'

Yes and again our PM lied. The state of a person's conscience who want this lifestyle accepted by marriage law is very sick.

Just a quick correction to the Author's by-line at the end of the article. It should read "Yuri Koszarycz WAS a Senior Lecturer in the School of Theology, McAuley Campus, Australian Catholic University." I retired from the university in 2010.

Dear runner,

I agree with you. Our prime minister lied. I find that completely unacceptable. Unfortunately we rarely have the choice between an honourable and a dishonourable person. All we can do is support the lesser of two evils. We don't even vote for the prime minister but for some noogie head belonging to the party of the prime minister. It would be good to have a prime minister who tells the truth, keeps commitments and is primarily concerned with the good of the country and the world. I think such people exist, but I don't think they can get very far in politics.

I don't think Juliar has a conscience.

Every promise has a subtext: "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead." (unless it is convenient).

"It is only a mystery if one still perceives the LNP as a 'liberal' party."
"All we can do is support the lesser of two evils."

You have an option: the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) is committed to liberalism in both its economic outlook and its social outlook.

Regarding the subject-matter, I believe that marriage is a private affair and government should stay right out of it - neither perform it, nor sanction it, nor register it. If one wants to marry a tree or 3 dogs, an elf, grandfather's clock and a frog, let them do what they like!

When Prof. Koszarycz states: "The problem may stem from the Catch-22 teaching within the Catholic Church that states that, following one's informed conscience should align any decisions made, with the actual teachings of the church. Forming an alternative view, for the Church, only demonstrates a poorly informed conscience," I would respectfully say that he presents not the teaching of the Church, but the theological opinion of certain individuals in the Church, many of whom have powerful positions in the hierarchy. But the tradition of the Church in the long run supports following what may indeed be a poorly informed conscience over the explicit teaching of the Church.

:-) The U.S. Catholic Interloper is absolutely correct in his comment regarding "freedom of conscience." Even the Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae, states in its opening statement: "A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man, and the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgment, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty."

My point is that Tony Abbot, despite professing his Catholic convictions, has not allowed members of his Party to exercise personal responsible freedom, but rather has opted to polarise the wider community by coercing his parliamentarians to vote according to Party lines

I can see clearly why Yuri Koszaryc WAS a lecturer at the Australian Catholic University. His political analysis and total naivety regarding the granting of a conscience vote on gay marriage is astounding. The issue is a political one because the ALP chose to make it one by bringing it into the parliament. Abbott is responding politically and rightly so. That this ex-lecturer should attempt to bring religion into an Australian political forum is disgraceful. We are an egalitarian nation where a person's religious beliefs are his own business. Who cares as to whether Abbott talks to the Cardinal Pell or Gillard talks to the Grand Mufti? As long as they do the job that they are paid handsomely for is all that matters. Go back to your ivory tower Yuri!

David: an honest politician? THAT would be a novelty. Has one been sighted yet?

US Catholic: Yes the church's insistence on following a right formed conscience isn't a new invention. It goes all the way back to one of the Doctor's of the Church St Augustine no less. I discovered this arcane theology in the late 60's when I refused to go to church and was immediately taken off to the local parish priest\. He then informed me out of earshot of dad that under this doctrine I would only be condemned for not following my conscience. He and the church felt that any right formed conscience would of course respect and follow the church. Little did they know...

regards
dkit

Yeah, but.
The parliament should be a manifestation of the will and temper of the Nation, ie the people.
How many people can even name their local member if put on the spot?
I've never met a member of the two major parties, I have met a few people who are in the Greens,are Union officials and who have run as independents.
Who here has ever been invited to join a political party, or even to a meeting?

"Extensive public support" from the rank and file of the majors is shorthand for the opinions of fifty or so lifetime branch members, which their delegate may or may not respect according to his conscience.

I think the answer to the whole marriage thing whether gay or otherwise (actually I always thought all marriages were gay in the dictionary sense anyway).. Do as the French do, anyone getting married (or called it whatever you want) goes before the local mayor and has a single ceremony with the mayor. No other celebrants of any type allowed. If you want a religious blessing of any flavour or persuasion go off afterwards (or before) and do it yourselves. But the only service recognised for legal purposes is the one with the mayor.

It would of course then be interesting to see how many really want a religous service then.

Give us all a break guys. The PM did not lie.
The circumstances changed for crying out loud.
She was locked in a minority government and
compromises had to be made. If Mr Abbott had
managed to succeed in persuading the Independents
to vote for him - he would have been in exactly
the same situation. Mr Abbott lost. The PM won.
Stop with the Liberal Party mantra - "She lied,"
Nonsense!

As for the conscience vote in gay marriage - the
importance of a conscience vote is that it enables members
of the front bench to vote one way or the other and not
put their position on the front bench at risk.

Lexi,

The PM made a promise and broke it, that is by the simplest definition a lie. The reason she was able to form a minority government is because she had no scruples in scrapping her promise to the electorate to get the greens on board. So she lied to achieve power, hardly a good reason.

Now there is another solemn promise about to be broken by Juliar.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I don't care what your opinion is any more - all
you do is keep repeating your party's mantra.
Go away - I neither respect nor want to hear
anything you have to say on any subject to me.
Go talk to some-one who gives a damn about what
you think. I don't! And I'm being polite.

runner, david f, Shadow Minister:

A lie is an intentionally false statement. If Julia Gillard had been thinking "There will be a carbon tax under the government I lead when she said "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead" the statement would have been a lie. How do you know what she was thinking?

So whilst the world implodes financially,and the imperialist neocons want to go to war with China/Russia,gay marriage is the big issue?

This thread is about a conscience vote in regard to same sex marriage,an issue that affects many Australian couples, that happen to be of the same sex.
The world will not end and the extreme rightwing religous fundamentalist will be able to continue and espouse their vitirol, to those who do not follow their dictate.
How about we live and let live, and cease imposing our beliefs towards others, that will not be of harm to anyone of us.
Love comes in many forms, and is always beautiful.

Gay marriage is only an issue to the gay community,the intellectual Left and to some extent the Churches. The attempt to make it an issue for everyone is coming from the media rather than the community. Generally, people just don't care.

I feel so sorry for Penny and her partners daughter's marital prospects.

What man in his right mind would want two mothers in law?

Dear criticaster,

Your comment was an exercise in casuistry. It doesn't matter what Gillard was thinking. She made a promise. If she had kept it the promise would have been the truth. When she broke it her promise became a lie.

Julia Gillard is not in charge of the current
Government - she is in Coalition with the
Independents and the Greens - a minority Government.
She doesn't "lead," she negotiates. There is a
difference.

She has to make compromises and that is the reality
as it exists. To keep repeating the nonsense that she "lied,"
does not make it so. She did not do it deliberately.
She had no choice and Mr Abbott would have been forced
to do exactly the same thing - had he succeeeded in his
attempts.

The PM at least has the decency to now put forward the
conscience vote in gay marriage - which is more than
can be said for the Opposition.

Dear Lexi,

You are right in that it is more decent to allow a conscience vote in such matters or in any matters not connected with the party platform. However, if one has to break a promise to keep power an ethical person might be willing to give up power. It is a rare national leader who is willing to give up power, but they exist. George Washington, the first president of the United States, could have been re-elected for life. He chose to resign after two terms although he didn't have to. Cincinnatus was chosen as dictator in republican Rome to rule the country during a crisis. When the crisis was over he resigned. Cincinnati, Ohio was named after him, and the officers of the Continental army which fought the American Revolution formed the society of Cincinnatus to indicate they were going back to private life and would not use their war time service for political gain. The US was founded on the idea that there would be no professional politicians. Pols would serve in government for a limited time and then go back to private life. Unfortunately that period didn't last long.

Lexi,

"Julia Gillard is not in charge of the current Government"

As PM in charge of an entirely Labor cabinet that is an exercise in extreme self delusion. If the facts are unpleasant you deal with them, trying to deny they ever happened simply strips you of credibility.

Even Juliar admitted that she broke a promise, so why can't you.

As for the conscience vote on gay marriage, there two components of this issue:

The first is the issue itself. I personally support the rights of all sexual persuasions to marry, and wish that the Coalition did too.

The second component is whether the parties are reneging on an election promise. The conscience votes I can remember were on issues such as stem cells, that had not been part of any election platform.

Juliar could meet both commitments by agreeing to a conscience vote in the next parliament, just less than 2 years from now.

Dear David F.,

I understand what you are saying about the choices
we make in our lives - they are personal, and we
have our reasons for making them - whatever they
may be. I still feel however that it is very difficult
to make judgements about somebody when circumstances
change especially in the political arena. Even Mr
Howard differentiated between his "core promises"
and "non-core promises," when his "circumstances"
changed.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I'd like to apologise for my unwarranted remark
directed at you in my earlier post on this thread
and Thank You for your continued civility. Quite
frankly - I'm getting tired of all this political
argument and I think its probably best that I stay
out of these discussions in the future.

Arjay,

Gay marriage is a big issue.

It has to do with the intrusion into the relation of two humans by State and Church.

It explains, if not define, the degeneration of Humanity to the abysmal state in which it has fallen.

Yuri Koszarycz is a priest of the highest order who professes convictions ingrained into him when young and unable to question their validity.

He, with the panache of the one who has no doubts about his righteousness, writes this piece on the ‘weird’ subject that bothers him; gay-straight marriage.

But the gay-straight marriage, at base, is not a political or religious issue; it is only a money issue that has to do with government grants and questions of inheritance.

Before Christianity, the ruler’s interests were centered on the product of the marriage, the child. Each child added revenue to the king.

Since packaged religions came into being, priests came to be interested in the child as a revenue source as well, and Church joined State in the exploitation of man.

Outlaw suicide, ban homosexuality! they diminish or not add to revenues.

This war will go on until humanity gets down to one man. One man, Priest or King will have no one to exploit.

In the mean time we have to find something to make us laugh.

And there is plenty to laugh about.

Dear Lexi,

You wrote: "I still feel however that it is very difficult
to make judgements about somebody when circumstances
change especially in the political arena. Even Mr
Howard differentiated between his "core promises"
and "non-core promises," when his "circumstances"
changed."

Perhaps I find it too easy to make judgements.

I was disgusted with Mr. Howard. I feel that one should not make non-core promises. It is reasonable to change one's position when circumstances change or when knows more about the situation. However, one should fully admit either the changes, ignorance or error. John F. Kennedy admitted both error and ignorance in the 'Bay of Pigs' fiasco. The country forgave him. However Howard's non-core promises were apparently promises he did not feel necessary to keep.

Fiorello La Guardia, former mayor of New York City, could also admit error.

Such pols are few, but they exist.

Does anyone know anything about cell phone jammers? I'd like to get one for my classroom. Kids are nor supposed to use cell phones in the building (landline phones are in every room in case of emergency). The kids still sneak phones in and try calling or texting on the sly. I've got a website http://www.jammerall.com/ from Google for help.Has anyone buy a one from it? Has anybody worked with these? I need more details.Am i doing the right thing then?
Introduce some more details about it!

Dear David F.,

I suppose that in talking about politicians most of
us do tend to be somewhat biased. Depending on our
political affiliations we tend to think of those on
"our side," as the heroes and those on the "other
side," as the villains. Usually there is a middle-ground.
And the reality may be different to how we perceive things.

However, you are probably right about the predictable
politicians. Whatever they may say, most of them do not go
into Parliament to bring about particular reforms.

As Peter Coleman points out in, "The Costello Memoirs,"

"They go in because they find the life irresistible.
They want to be in it all their lives. They enjoy the
exhilarating highs and take its miserable (and tedious) lows
in their stride. They face long years in the wilderness
with equanimity. They take for granted the slander of fools.
They also believe that the voters will get it right in the end.
Their day will come. They are politicians in the way others
are poets. They can't help themselves."

Some are obviously not like that. Some are not seat-warmers,
hacks, or careerists, or at best adventurers. Some do belong to
a different parliamentary tradition. They do go into Parliament
to make changes. But as you point out, they are rare indeed.

We can only hope that the time is ripe to sort through
the past decade's irrational policymaking and offer a logical
set of policies, driven by the need of human beings rather
than political fear.

Dear Lexi,

I was an adviser to Senator John Woodley. He was head of the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship when he was in parliament since he was the only ordained minister in that body. We had many differences as I have a very different worldview from him. However, he was alert to the wishes of his constituents, the moral and ethical consequences of his votes and the wider good of Australia. As an Australian Democrat every vote was a conscience vote. There is a party position but not a party line that all must follow. He is one of the finest, most honest, most thoughtful and most considerate persons I have ever met. Not all of the Australian Democrats were of that high quality. However, I have the distinct impression that there are members of the other parties who are also conscientious. Although I am in almost total disagreement with the policies of Bob Katter and think he is a bit of a clown I also think he is an extremely honourable person.

Dear Skeptic,

"Gay marriage is a big issue.

It has to do with the intrusion into the relation of two humans by State and Church."

How can you combine the two?
Churches are voluntary organizations, hence they should be able to do whatever they like in regard to their members - the State is not!

Dear Yuyutsu,

I agree that churches should be entitled to do whatever
they want within their own institutions - however they
do not have the right to impose their wills on others
outside their institutions -
and they certainly do have certain obligations to
respect the wishes of the secular society - as long as
they keep getting money from it.

Dear Lexi,

I couldn't agree more!

A church is supposed to be loyal to God alone: a church which conducts a relationship and exchanges favours with the state, commits adultery!

Preaching to the choir, Yuyutsu. There's no point trying to convince people in these parts of the validity of Matthew 22:21 - they already know. The idea is to convince all those 'Christians' like George Pell and Fred Nile, who make a mockery of their faith by professing to be Christian but dismissing Christ's teachings when they don't like them.

>>>> "The decision to not allow a conscience vote on this issue polarises the broader community to either support "the Party that supports gay marriage," or "the Party that opposes amendments to the Marriage Act."

Interesting. Presumably the author thinks the fact that the Liberals ACTUALLY AMENDED the Marriage Act has nothing to do with which party "opposes amendments to the Marriage Act"!

Perhaps the author ought to have written instead that it polarises the broader community to support a democratic party, or a theocratic one.

>>>> "However, as a Catholic (who once trained to be a priest) he should be equally aware of the teaching of the Catholic Church's magisterium that there is no higher moral obligation than "to follow and live according to one's informed conscience."

But you see, allowing a conscience vote on marriage equality does not prevent Abbott from "following and living according to" the rules for Catholics. Even if gay marriage were allowed, Tony Abbott doesn't have to have one!

The problem seems to be that people who make choices informed by religious doctrine always assume that, naturally, EVERYONE should be bound by their religion's rules, whether an adherent or not. Scary stuff lies that way.

Further, the ultimate source of Abbott's religious morality is the premise of the Catholic version of God actually existing! Arguments from religion have an unwarranted privilege in that they don't have to be substantiated. Whereas a strong battle has to be fought and fought for what ought to be common sense (imo, equality!), everything can be opposed by the religious simply on the grounds that "my god said so". I think that's absolutely outrageous!!

Iterestingly, the Australian Christian Lobby has a curious blind spot in their argument from religion... They are always banging on and on about how they must have "freedom OF religion", yet when some churches point out that their religion supports gay marriage, the ACL's "freedom" somehow doesn't apply! Funny innit! :-)

Why doesn't everyone just see it my way, and we'd all get on so much better?! :-)

@david f "I agree with you. Our prime minister lied. I find that completely unacceptable. "

A lie? Or maybe just a "non-core promise". ;-)

Yuyutsu,

You say:

“A church is supposed to be loyal to God alone”.

What do you mean by the adjective ‘loyal’ and by the term ‘God’?

Loyal is a quality, usually proper to servants.

God is someone nobody can see but all can imagine.

But you don’t know what my image of God is and I don’t know what the image of your God is.

So: There is your God and there is my God and a God for each one of us human beings; that is as many Gods as there are people.

Church means assembly of people with common interests.

These people of the church pursue such interests to their benefit at the cost or disfavor of the people who are not of the church.

Their Gods and the gods of those outside the church are not in the game of the two groups.

Gods don’t enter into dirty games.

Well.....talk about stone-age thinkings.

Oh dear:)

CACTUS

Dear Skeptic,

There is no way to define God. Some churches make an attempt to do so, others don't. If they do, then such definitions can only serve as approximations or pointers. I personally can only attempt to define God in the negative: I can only say that there is nothing but God, but some churches have different approaches. This, however, should not matter for the purpose of this discussion.

Being a servant of God is a great honour. It is definitely superior than being a servant of one's ego, of other people or of an organization, including the state or 'the public', even of humanity.

'Loyal' means that one puts the interest (or even the perceived interest) of that which s/he is loyal to above all other interests.

A golf club may also be an assembly of people with common interests. This may be a trick of the English language, but I am sure that you know that I use the word 'Church' in its more common use, rather than for any arbitrary assembly.

The degree to which the beliefs of a particular church correspond with reality may be an interesting topic, but is irrelevant to this particular discussion. All that matters in this context, is that a Church is there to worship God, whatever their notion and experience of God happens to be - otherwise it would not be a Church in the context of this discussion.

Given that a group is a church, coming together to worship God, they should worship and serve God alone (as they best understand Him) - not their own interests. They should worship diligently and never compromise it by shackling themselves to the state's interests by playing dirty games with the state, then becoming obligated or indebted to it as a result. States are secular and ungodly institutions: churches should retain their independence, staying as far away from states as possible, in the same manner as one would avoid snakes or fire.

@Yuyutsu "Being a servant of God is a great honour. It is definitely superior than being a servant of one's ego"

So you believe you're a superior and more honourable person because you're not a slave to your ego?

And you don't see anything at all suspect about that belief?! Hilarious.

;-)

Yes, Jimmy:

IF I were a true servant of God, then I would be superior AND I would have honoured myself more than I currently do. I have no need for honours from anybody else.

@Yuyutsu "IF I were a true servant of God, then I would be superior AND I would have honoured myself more than I currently do."

Ah, so you pride yourself on your modesty, huh? I see. ;-)

@Yuyutsu "I have no need for honours from anybody else."

You patently have the need to tell us what the criteria for being "superior and more honourable" are, otherwise you wouldn't have told us that it was basically... worshiping God.

Sp, why tell us how you think people ought to be judged if you don't need us to judge you?

Doesn't make sense.

Yuri,

I'm perplexed.

"Abbott's decision to not allow a conscience vote on gay marriage polarises the broader community to either support 'the Party that supports gay marriage', or 'the Party that opposes amendments to the Marriage Act'"

Why don't you think the Labor Party platform in favour of Gay Marriage doesn't 'polarise(s) the broader community'?

And why Julia's and the labor party's platform of a requirement for a consciense vote doesn't then confuse the crap out of voters?

All Abbott has to say is a vote for Labor will see a change to the marriage act because Gillard is a proven liar and you can't trust anything she says and the faceless ones will see that Labor policy is voted for. She'll agree with the faceless ones and change her mind once re-elected.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the polarity, if one at all is being established, is not so much 'either support "the Party that supports gay marriage," or "the Party that opposes amendments to the Marriage Act"' but rather 'the Party that proposes amendments to the Marriage Act' and 'the Party that supports traditional marriage'. That is, after all, precisely what is being debated, and phrases both sides in a positive fashion