If true, it is a strike against Fr. Brennan and his idea of Catholicism that he will support SSM if he and his teachings are left alone. When a Catholic priest says he will support this utter nonsense, society has really hit rock bottom.

All that Christians have to do is ask for the government to create two marriage acts, one secular and the other religious, and it will be given to them. Eventually marriage will be redefined, and the worst path for Christians to take would be to pretend that living under a secular definition is scripturally sound. And while there, we need to consider why we've rendered everything unto Caesar when it was supposed to be limited to taxes. Mark 12:17.

Of course “No one should be denied the ability to marry the person they love simply because of the religious beliefs of others”, but no one is. To “marry” is to form a union with a person of the opposite sex. If you do not want to form a union with a person of the opposite sex, you are free not to. If you want instead to form a union with a person of the same sex, you are free to do so. What you are not free to do is steal the word “marriage”, just as vegetarians are not free to steal the word “carnivore” to describe themselves.

There is no such thing as same-sex marriage, and yet this absurdity created out of nothing has reached the brink of success inside 20 years because of a ruthlessly dishonest campaign.

The aim was to steal a word or, to make sure the English language no longer had a word that meant the union of a man and a woman, that husband no longer meant husband and that wife no longer meant wife. To succeed, the aim had to be dressed up in human rights language with the campaign falsely labelled marriage equality, with the creation of a minority group of victims being discriminated against, with polls asking if same-sex marriage should be legalised (even though it was not illegal in the first place, but non-existent) or if gays should be allowed to marry (when they already were, just as they already were allowed to form same-sex unions). To add emotion, opponents were intimidated by being called homophobic bigots and by being blamed for mental health issues actually created by the campaign’s invention of the idea that the thousand-year-old meaning of a word made gays feel second-class, even though it had not done so for the first 980 of those years.

Gay marriage is the silliest thing to be taken seriously in my lifetime, but the campaign provides a lesson for those want real things. Get the wording right and you can change anything.

Hear, hear and well said Luke!

If a gentle Jesus were alive and with us today many of Father Brennan's ilk would likely label him gay and decline his request for a same sex marriage to Judas, which by the way would end all suspicion for all time?

To which he may well have replied, "inasmuch as you do to the least among you, you also do unto me"? And no sick homophobic jokes please!

Prejudice is just not pretty, which sometimes turn up in and emergency ward as a bashed gay barely alive!

And only so because some have been inculcated to believe that gay people are inherently evil people. who have another choice; one of which is, entirely unreasonable self imposed celibacy?

Yeah sure, you can even get a horse to deal cards if you shove a cattle prod up its arse enough times?

Aversion/behavior moderation therapy?

Even so, it is not how the horse was born, or with a God given ability to deal cards?

Me I've had enough of the anti equality campaign or rearguard action, ably supported by an entirely recalcitrant PM?

Me, I vote to end the manufacture of left handed screwdrivers, combs, pins, light switches, rolling pins and rulers or two left handers being allowed to marry!

I mean c'mon, what's next, being allowed to wear your wedding ring on the third finger of your right hand, because you're naturally left handed?

Some traditions are far more important than the rights of the marginalised!

I mean there was a time when white folks were the only ones allowed to queue,when the brains were being handed out?
Rhrosty.

If marriage is only about 'love' as the gay marriage proponents assert and now that marriage is to undergo radical change it is high time that the increasing number of singles demanded to know why they should be required to pay for other people's 'love'.

What about getting rid of those couple advantages, concessions and lurks that singles miss out on and must inevitably have to subsidise directly or indirectly?

Why should singles have to pay for gay love, on top of copping the short end of the stick for gays and heteros who don't even commit for marriage and many regard their de facto 'relationships'(sic) as flexible and temporary anyhow? -Particularly the every beneficial employment conditions that gay and heterosexual couples have been able to claim for years as politicians and public servants. They have been the greedy pacesetters along with senior managers in private enterprise.

Why should singles who are usually in casual employment be forced to pay for the 'love' choices of others anyhow? What was that about ending the Age of Entitlement?

Why should young working singles who are required to pay for their own education, shelter and superannuation (where their small subs are plundered and often extinguished by management fees) be obliged to support the vastly increased increased number of 'couple relationships' approved by the feds?

This is a one-time golden opportunity for singles young and old, to show all political parties that singles have rights too and NO, they shouldn't be forced to pay for others' 'love'.

At the very least, singles of all ages should register a protest against their shabby treatment by finding someone else to vote for than the Greens and Labor in the Senate and some LNP hopefuls too it seems.

Chris C:

That is a well painted picture of how bizarre this whole circus has become.

When you are insecure about the validity of your relationship and where it fits into the wider picture of all relationships it is a good tactic to try and attach yourself to a group of people who seem to have validity and mimic their relationships.

Whether or not marriage adds to the validity of a relationship is questionable but why do homosexual couples feel the need to mimic? You would think they would be proud of their distinctiveness and want to celebrate it with a unique word for their relationship. If they had a unique word then everyone would get the picture that they are both homosexual and in a special relationship. If they are able to legally marry then such a distinction is lost.

That is the point of the whole exercise – to be seen to be both married and homosexual but how would anyone know this? If you say you are married people will reasonably presume you are heterosexual and that is not what you want so why not choose a word that conveys the fact that you have a special relationship and you are homosexual?

Their behaviour is so riddled with inconsistencies and hypocrisy that it is hard to take them seriously.

The thing that really leapt out at me about Fr Brennan's article is what it says about acceptance of homophobia in the broader community.

As Luke points out, each of the four points is either already covered off at law, is irrelevant to the issue, or both. And it's not obscure that they are already covered by laws, or irrelevant, it is patently obvious. They are, even on first cursory look by a moderately intelligent and informed person, really, really, weak and bad things to argue for.

So my point is, it says quite a bit about our society that anyone thinks that there is any traction in them at all. It says quite a bit that they would be published in various fora (and to be clear, I am not talking about no-platforming with ideas with which I disagree; I am saying, that in public debate, especially on serious issues that affect the lives and wellbeing of people, what is published should, actually, contain at least some ideas to be worthy of publication). It says quite a lot about the views of Fr Brennan, a very intelligent and normally thoughtful person - who, unlike so many churchman actually gets that this is a secular issue - that he thought that it was worth putting these ideas forward and that they might be taken on board by those who are not already behind the rood screen.

And what it says, I think, is that as a society we give a pass to bad arguments about LGBTI issues that we would not dream of putting forward about other groups, and what that speaks about is entrenched homophobia.

Also teasing out the issue of the best interests of the child: I think some, if not all, State and Territory jurisdictions already have this requirement governing adoption and foster care (if any do not then perhaps they should).

However, as well as Luke's point that this is nothing to do with the present matter: when the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney went to court to assert (successfully) their right to discriminate against potential same-sex foster-carers, it was on the basis of exemptions of churches from discrimination laws, not the interests of children.

'To “marry” is to form a union with a person of the opposite sex'

That's just a contingent definition that exists at certain times and certain places.

In many times and places it has meant (and still does mean) polygamy, usually polygyny.

In many times and places it has meant (and still does mean) men having a host of rights over women as property that, generally, in our society today we would see as abhorrent.

Would we like to go back to only enfranchising males with a certain amount of property and who are not, themselves, employees? Because that is what the franchise 'meant' in the Anglo-world, not that long ago in the scheme of things.

Do we want married women out of the workforce again? Because that's what mean's roles 'meant' until quite recently.

Custom and practice, or the supposed meanings of words, are no sound basis for treating people less favourably.

"Whether or not marriage adds to the validity of a relationship is questionable but why do homosexual couples feel the need to mimic? "

Instead of straightsplaining to them, have you ever thought of asking any of them, or listening to what they say?

progressive pat,

"...and it will be given to them". What rot! The hell it will. The Constitution is not something anyone is going play around with like that.

And it's not just Christians that object (some of them accept queer marriage, as Fr. Brennan does as long as it suits him). Many objectors to SSM are atheists, or adhere to any of the any other of the religions practised in Australia; including those Muslims, loved by the Left, but who have severe remedies for homosexuality.

wearertardust,

Instead of a rationial argument to support your beliefs, you stoop to abuse by bringing up the 'homophobia' crap usually dealt up by people hating like hell free speech for anyone but themselves.

You are behind the times: the silly word, just like 'racist' has been so mis-used and abused that it has no effect whatever ; it is meaningless and has no currency with anybody who might hate homosexuals merely for what they are (they already know they that they hate homosexuals, and telling them something they already know is not going to change their feelings, and most people I know who are anti-SSM, including me, DO NOT hate homosexuals.

All sorts of arguments and all sorts of reasons
are being put forward both for and against
same-sex marriage. I am beginning to see that
there are sincere and valid arguments on both
sides. In order to lift this debate to an
intelligent and mature discussion we should all
listen to each other in this debate and not
insult or debase the arguments that we don't agree
with. We are all entitled to our opinions.
We should not demonise others who don't agree with
us.

The best way, in my humble opinion on resolving this
issue is to allow the people of this country to have
their say. A vote on whether they want same-sex marriage
or not. Of course, before this is done - the full
legalities of this action should be explained and what
it means. People need all the information prior to
voting on the issue. Only then can they make an
informed choice.

Foxy I agree, a plebiscite seems to me a good way to resolve this issue. It is fundamentally a question of what society believes marriage is, and that’s not particularly suited to resolution in the party political melee.

I'd add a couple of riders, though - the question should be drafted with the agreement of both sides, so it's not loaded or ambiguous; and government should agree to abide by the outcome.

I also think we should hold the vote before the next election

Yes, Foxy, Rhian, but at the next election please!

If only to save the millions any further delay would create. Time being the friend of the homophobes; they think?

Homophobic bigots just being an apt description, rather than alleged denigration!

I mean, you'd think two siblings raised in the same environment with the same influences, would have the so called straight one questioning his/her assertions; but particularly if that person comes from a medical background and well inculcated in science?

I guess this is what is meant by, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink? Or in human terms, think!

Those who believe they are on the right side of history have little to fear by being right and in the majority.

Those completely out of step with the wider community, will likely try every dirty trick in the book, to sway the still undecided; and to them I say, good luck with that!
Rhrosty.

Gay marriage is radical change to marriage, turning the whole concept on its head. For instance it breaks the connection between procreation and marriage. Pro-gay marriage proponents have been very quick to say that radical feminism has dug the ground away from under 'traditional marriage', family and fatherhood over the years anyhow and they are right. Marriage is a hollowed-out institution.

The elephant in the room is that the whole rationale for giving marrieds preferential treatment, entitlements and concessions, directly and indirectly, has been lost as well. That is especially so because the 'married' rump of the population has been increased significantly by de factos gaining married entitlements and then by adding homosexual 'relationships' (new speak for de facto) as well.

So, why should single people be forced to pay for other people's 'love'? Their only argument for special treatment is their 'love', whatever that is.

Last time a society had politicized and networked gays in power it was the Nazi core of the SA under promiscuous gays Roehm and Hitler from the 1920s.

Very silly idea. An earlier and more established form was Sodom, well recorded in Jewish and Muslim texts, perhaps less so in Christian versions (maybe how the "Christian" West came to this bizarre situation?)

Dear Observer,

For your information, the norm that made Sodom so notorious was not homosexuality, but the torture of guests. One of the forms of torture happened to be homosexual rape but it was not the only form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah#Jewish

---

Since I'm already here, what I can say about the article is that Fr. Frank Brennan received his legal answer:

The law already persecutes and potentially martyrs some religious people (and others) if they refuse to provide goods, services or accommodation against their conscience, thus condition #4 is not met.

Being there no goodwill to change this situation, Fr. Brennan has no reason to support the change.

mil.observer,

Hitler was NOT gay. You should be calling yourself NIL.observer.

phanto,

I am a vegetarian. I do not claim my human rights are infringed because I am not called a carnivore. I do not need society to relabel me to ensure I have self-esteem. I am not persecuted and I do not care if other people think my vegetarianism is strange. I do not set up Australians for Meat Equality and demand to be called a carnivore.

The High Court changed the meaning of “marriage” in the Constitution in 2013. That is why we need a constitutional referendum to change it back.

People have taken to saying that a public vote that does not change the Constitution is a plebiscite, not a referendum. That claim is a recent invention. I refer all readers to the (https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C1916A00027) Military Service Referendum Act 1916, which did not seek to amend the Constitution. It seems only fitting that the redefinition of “referendum” be accompanied by the redefinition of “marriage”, though they are going in opposite direction, “referendum” becoming more restricted and “marriage” becoming, well, anything you like.

Those in the Abbott government arguing for a non-constitutional referendum or a so-called plebiscite want to appear to be doing something without actually doing it because, given the highly emotive arguments given widespread coverage and the name-calling designed to silence the opponents, there is no doubt that a simple yes-no plebiscite for same-sex marriage would be carried. However, if the issue were presented in a different way, the result would be less certain. A referendum to replace the word “marriage” in Section 51 with “civil partnership (being the union of any two adult persons voluntarily entered into for life to the exclusion of all others), including marriage (being the voluntary union of one man and one woman voluntarily entered into for life to the exclusion of all others)” would have a chance of being carried.

If there is a so-called plebiscite, it will be time to give up because that will tell you that those in the government who say they are opposed to same-sex marriage are not serious about it.

wearestardust,

If you want to go down the road of contingent meanings then, let’s call saucepans doctors. Let’s just follow Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass.

In our society “marriage” has always meant the union of one man and one woman.

“Franchise” has never mean “only enfranchising males with a certain amount of property and who are not, themselves, employees”. It has always meant, among other things, the right to vote, but various restrictions on that right have existed at various times and still do today.

“Roles” has never meant keeping “married women out of the workforce” though society did discourage them for a period. “Roles” means, among other things, the usual or accepted parts that people play in society. The particular roles change at different times, but the meaning of the word does not.

The whole discussion seems incapable of distinguishing between the meaning of a word and the restriction on access to the thing that the word denotes. This is best illustrated looking at the reasoning of those who bring race into it. When restaurants in the southern states of the US were forbidden to serve people of one race, they were still restaurants. Their nature did not change. When laws forbad a man of one race from marrying a woman of another, they were a restriction on access to marriage: i.e., a restriction on access to the union of one man and one woman. They were not changes in the meaning of marriage. It should be a simple matter to distinguish between what marriage is and who has access to it. As marriage is the union of a man and a woman, banning certain women from marrying certain men is a restriction on access, but not calling a non-marriage a marriage is not a restriction on access but acceptance that words have meanings.

Gay people are not treated less favourably because a word has one meaning and not another.