Well, it's sad that the priest was taken to court, but these dramas can be avoided by having a secular and a Christian version of marriage. Discarding secular influence on Christian marriage would make them more selfless which is kind of the idea anyway.

All this false outrage from followers of the Catholic faith when others question their faith makes me feel ill.
Where is the outrage at the Catholic hierarchy who have/are protecting/hiding the dirty old paedophile brothers and priests who messed with the kiddies under their care?

"Suffer little children to come unto me, because theirs is the kingdom of heaven".
Thought police indeed.

Not "any religious institution" I'm afraid. The twisted 'rights' perveyors were meaning the Islamic institution when they came up with that one; not our own Christian religion, which is now so despised by the yahoos in Australia.

Have to agree and emphatically so, with Susan!
Alan B.

The progressive are so sure of their point of view that they cannot tolerate alternate views.

I'm sure that Martine Delaney dropped her case against the Archbishop because she realised that she hadn't a legal leg to stand on, and secondly because most of Aus thought that she was a bigoted idiot.

Hi Suse

The behaviour of paedophile priest was appalling, as was the institutional cover up by the church. But I don't see how either is relevant to the right of the church to propound its position on same-sex marriage.

I support same-sex marriage, and don't agree with the Roman Catholic church's position on the issue (and many others). But it should be free to argue its case.

I think religion is just superstition and very sad.
I also think we are mostly either one gender or the other with some problems in between. Science is proved in this.
Just because you really, sincerely and truly believe something does not make it so.
Some of Delaney's mates are now claiming to be "Wolves" and "foxes" and are being listened to rather than being given physciatric assistance.
All backed by our taxpaying dollars. Lets tax the churches and the new beliefs or at least do not allow them "Not for profit" status.

Interesting comment on the notion of freedom of religion and freedom of expression! Unfortunately there seems to be little respect given to the "freedom of others" to be different! Almost on a daily basis we have negative comments directed at Islamic beliefs even when practised in a benign and moderate way. Very few would leap to their defence.

Now, in our polarised and secularised society, any religious view that threatens the views of the most vocal minority is excoriated and vilified. It seems that we forget the rights of ALL individuals to freedom of conscience and freedom of dissent and expression in our democratic society.

Catholics do have their traditional moral and doctrinal beliefs that they are entitled to hold without fear or favour. You do not have to agree with them - that is your "privilege" within a multicultural, democratic society, but you also do not have the right to legally forbid the Catholic Church expressing, teaching and vigorously defending its beliefs. To do that would turn Australia into an unjust, autocratic, and dictatorial regime which is the total antipathy of all forms of freedoms that we now enjoy and cherish.

Yuri, I doubt anyone is 'forbidding' the Catholic Church fro expressing their religious views etc.

However, the Catholic Church (and other religions) have long felt the need to push for laws and policies that affect far more people than their own faithful, to uphold their religious 'values'.
Examples of this include abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, same sex marriage, religion in our schools etc.

The bulk of the population of Australia would accept same sex marriage, but minority(religious) parties like Family First and fundamentalist right-wing men in politics are not allowing it.
That is not a democracy...that is a theocracy....how frightening!

So if your opinion is that your opinion is not an opinion, Chris's opinion is that you shouldn't have to tell anyone that it is?

My opinion differs. If you can support your claims with factual evidence then obviously you will do so -- why wouldn't you? But if you can't, that should be made clear, particularly to children and others who have yet to learn critical thinking skills.

Suse,
These fundamentalist right wingers are a tiny faction with next to no influence, there's no debate over same sex marriage because the fundamentalist Leftists won't permit it and use violence, blockades and terrorism to enforce their point of view. There's no reliable information on the views of Australians on the matter and the lead up to the plebiscite will be totally dominated by pro change groups funded by the Unions and leftist philanthropists like Apple, Google, Facebook and George Soros.
Here's the point though, if you don't want churches involved in politics then stop funding them through massive subsidies and contracts for social services and refugee resettlement.

Hi Suse

The church has views on how society should be, not just on how Christians should be. Some of those are views I think you might agree with, such as advocating more humane treatment of asylum seekers.

The church has the right to express its views. It does not have the right to impose them. If the church had any authority to force its views on society then we would be living in a theocracy, but it doesn’t. Even a deeply Catholic country like Ireland can vote for, and implement, same-sex marriage in opposition to the church's position. If we have a plebiscite in Australia, I hope we do the same, regardless of what the church might argue

Again the regressives demonstrating who the true bigots are. No wonder people are reacting by supporting Trump and the Phillipino President when you have people with perverted views and lifestyles trying to silence anyone who speaks commonsense. Then you have the dumbed down mob like getup/labour/greens/abc who support this feeding of the corrupt legal system.

Even if a mandate for legalising same sex marriage is achieved all that will happen is that an already despised and alienated subculture will be further marginalised, ridiculed and scorned for aping societal norms.
In the eyes of religious types a married pervert is still a pervert and it won't stop the homosexual life's endemic abuses of young people, their dishonesty or their drug abuse.
Jack Donovan once asked whether being able to marry will stop Gays from taking steroids and crystal meth and chasing fourteen year olds? The answer of course is no, so nothing important changes if Gay marriage becomes legal.
The world is moving away from Western Liberal values, along with Russia China has recently banned depictions of "the darker side of life" (ie homosexuality) in the media, the Islamic world is as ever on it's own path and who knows what will happen in the wash up from the unrest in Latin America.
So who's really on the wrong side of history here?

Runner Trump is pro Gay rights and mainly indifferent to other social justice concerns but your point is taken, the clear majority of people see homosexuality as something a minority of people do by choice but that it's something they need to keep to themselves as it's distasteful to people not involved in that subculture.
Hunting is distasteful to some people, so are boxing, pornography, heavy metal music, horror movies etc, other people don't mind those activities but they keep it "in house" so to speak.
A decent person doesn't walk into a vegetarian restaurant or a children's playground with a freshly shot kangaroo carcass over his shoulder, homosexuals by the same token should not be turning up to Churches and upsetting the congregation, as they've been doing of late.
This principle used to be known as "live and let live".

We not only have freedom of speech in our society but also the freedom to try and change the law to what we would like it to be. Religious groups have that right like everyone else. You cannot complain when the Catholic Church takes up that option without complaining about every other group who does the same – including homosexual groups.

What matters is how you go about achieving your ends. If you try and use the legal system just to silence others then you are abusing the legal system. Of course you are welcome to try but what satisfaction is there in getting what you want by such means. It proves nothing about your argument and only something about your ability to manipulate.

Getting what you want by these methods does not mean you have changed the attitudes of others where it really counts – in their minds and hearts. This kind of action does not promote the cause of homosexuals it just alienates them from wider society because they are seen to be manipulative and devious. It has nothing to do with their sexuality and everything to do with their dishonesty and selfishness.

Such ‘victories’ do not satisfy homosexual people because they know that acquiescence as a result of being bullied and intimidated is not agreement. The emptiness they feel projects them into more of the same. They make more and more demands to try and get the same momentary but shallow sense of winning. The more resistance they come across the more aggressive they become.

Same-sex marriage will not satisfy their need for approval – nothing will ever do that. It becomes like a drug that they are consumed in pursuing. They already have everything they need to live peaceful and meaningful lives but you can never get genuine approval for your behaviour no matter how much you try and bully others into giving it to you.

Between whatever says what does what, what could be mentioned is that religion create statements that can't be proved to be true. Afterlife, where is the afterlife other than in child-like imaginations.

Humans are easily persuaded to believe in unseen beliefs merely because once child-like imaginations begin to believe, what's believed is difficult not to believe.

All those embarrassing priests molesting children stories whether true or false entertain child-like imaginations.

What is entertaining to human beliefs is by words alone, anecdotally feels true.

Children aged 5 and 6 years attend school education, with too much child-like imagination to begin to learn to think without using child-like emotions.

http://deepthought101.simplesite.com

Read how children learning boring classroom studying too early an age, guides children into stupid: drug addiction; alcoholism; etc, life long behaviour.

Chris Ashton writes: "She demanded nothing less than for the church to publish a heavily redacted version of the document which presented Catholic teaching as mere opinion – a view that is itself contrary [to?] Catholic teaching, and indeed to the very notion of religious truth."

Yet how redolent of the protests by religious groups who would attempt to rewrite scientific theories such as that of Evolution by demanding similar redactions in scientific text books!

And Ashton's outrage at the offence to "religious truth".......? I must admit, I smiled at the pomposity that was required to reach an outraged state of mind over such a strange concept.

He writes further: "......as she sought to unashamedly bully those with opposing views, and to do so using the weaponised, coercive power of the state."

A tactic of religion, particularly the roman catholic religion, resorted to for millennia and responsible for some of the most cruel acts of coercion ever devised by humankind. In publicly condemning those whom he doesn't like and with whom he violently disagrees Ashton is revealing himself here as a giant among hypocrites, a major figure in the league.

And further: "His crime, as a prince of the Catholic Church, was to have published a booklet on Catholic doctrine to distribute to Catholic parishioners, specifically parishioners with children at Catholic schools. Heinous, I know!"

Is the issue really this simple? It has been my experience that when all the facts are revealed, apparently innocent activities by catholic clergy emerge drenched in surreptitious intentions. Activities more honoured in the breach of regulations, custom and decency than in the observance engender that frisson of excitement in endangering one's seat on the Glory Train in the service of god.

Lastly: "But if offended transgender, transsexual, lesbian Greens will come after a Catholic bishop for simply teaching what the Catholic Church believes, they will come after anyone!"

Which is what the catholic bishops used to do to transgender, transsexual, lesbian greens not that long ago. And they came after them good and hard too!

Jay of Melbourne states '...and it won't stop the homosexual life's endemic abuses of young people, their dishonesty or their drug abuse.' Anyone actually know what that means? Speaking in over-generalized terms is meaningless and a distraction that attempts to disguise the fact the author is full of nothing but empty rhetoric. And same-sex marriage is not illegal and they occur often. Facts never stop people from posting tripe though.

No Phanto, there is no 'freedom of speech in our society'. The opposite is true; there are many regulations about what can be said/printed/broadcast. Just ask Andrew Bolt about it.