Sunday, April 22, 2012

22nd April 2012

Today I did the National Trust thing, after my early morning church meeting that is. So here you see my daughter’s family, and yes I know I’ve been a little emotional all week but it’s lovely to see the four of them walking along holding hands. Family is really important to me and I’m so grateful to God for all my sons-in-law, though especially for the grandchildren they’ve given me. Both sets of parents are doing a great job at building family, and I consider it a real privilege to be invited out like I was today. Although we didn’t travel that far I took my motorhome and that was perfect for a very rainy lunchtime picnic. We all pretended we were on holiday together, though apparently it doesn’t ever rain when they go camping!

I’m feeling a little confused at the moment, specifically about the government’s proposed bill to redefine marriage. In simple terms they propose that civil partnerships be reclassified as marriage. Maybe I’m old fashioned, ill-informed or just plain religious but I just don’t get it. I’m certainly not a bigot though. But I find the whole thing offensive and can’t see why anyone would deem it necessary. It’s plain to see that there will always be a distinctive between a male-female marriage and either a gay or lesbian partnership. To me they all three are different from each other and there are consequences for each life choice. Don’t get me wrong, I’m very comfortable with those who choose a same sex union; that should be their choice for better or for worse so to speak. I believe all people are of equal value and so, for each of one us are our life style choices. So I don’t have any problem with any financial consideration being made equal relating to any committed partnership either. If a couple commit to join their finances together, that should be taken into consideration upon a break up for any reason. And why not with say two sisters or brothers who live together, why should they be treated differently? Basically I don’t like the heavy hand of state control over personal lifestyle decisions, unless it involves children. The vulnerable will always need protection. No, any finger of judgement I point at another will always be subjective, and can so easily turn back upon me.

It’s just marriage has always been seen to be the joining of a man and a woman; we even have active legislation going back 800 years with that definition. I find it bizarre and perverse that a government with no electoral mandate can almost on a whim seek to legislate to change that definition. For me marriage is precious, especially when God centred. I’ve liked being called father and husband, I don’t want to be called progenitor 1 or partner 1 and legally there’s all sorts of stuff like that down the road. Ultimately though it really feels like an attack on traditional marriage, especially when contractual equality already exists and it’s just a very expensive linguistic exercise. But then marriage is surely one of God’s good ideas anyway and it’s not unusual to find our Post-Christian society trying to remove God and Godliness from our world.

I’m not sure how well I’ve explained myself, so for those interested there’s more information and a staggeringly large Coalition for Marriage petition at

Genesis 1:27 So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.’ (NLT)

No comments: