Minister denies wedding

[melanie]

Australia is going through a media circus atm in regards to the plebiscite on same sex marriage that is currently being undertaken. Its non binding, will have no bearing legally on the issue and has only served to cause division and hostility to the tune of 122 million.
In the end the decision will be made in the senate where our politicians are elected and paid to make such decisions.
It's such a shame that this discussion has led to such divide, I don't believe that's the narrative that was needed.
In the backlash of the decision in the US we have heard very vocally of the instance of the cake maker, it's been worldwide news, popular on here and echos loudly in our own debate. With a population of over 300 million in the US the mere fact that this instance still permeates the discussion really is indicative that it's not an illustration of how the decision has impacted society.
We have our own 'cake maker' story, it may not have garnered even slightly the same publicity but it highlights discrimination which ever way you spin it.
A hetrosexual couple were to be married in a Presbyterian Church, they had been through the vetting process, openly admitted they would have gay people attending and had the go ahead for their marriage. They sent out invitations and were good to go but because of the circus regarding this issue the Minister who when looking through their Facebook profile saw a post about supporting same sex marriage decided to deny to marry them despite previously being okay.

That's not religious freedom, that's stupidity. It's like denying to marry someone because they support atheists' right to their worldview, or for making a FB post supporting legalising marijuana. It's a gross misuse of position and ultimately not fair and discriminatory. Australia is so conscious to uphold religious freedom which is great but they can't get away with misusing the freedom to do so!

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.smh ... ygcyp.html

[RickD]

The situations where we strongly disagree, are the perfect examples of why free speech and freedom of religion is needed. The pastor has every right, or should have every right, to do stupid things.
If I were in the couple's shoes, I wouldn't want someone marrying us, who is so strongly against something that I believe in.

What's ironic, is that here in the US, the Presbyterian church is one of the more pro gay marriage denominations.

[melanie]

I get it Rick,
But somewhere there has to be protection against stupidity even under the guise of freedom of speech or freedom of religion. Those terms are not a blanket disclaimer of all things idiotic waved under a banner of freedom of religion or speech.
I think when Clergy start trawling through Facebook profiles the bigger issue lies in not what they may find but what on earth they're doing in the first place.
Social media has even corrupted the church

[Kurieuo]

I agree with RickD, no one has the right to force anyone to render their services. Such is anti-libertarian in the worst slavish way. Stupid people will just lose business when people "shop" elsewhere.

I don't watch the news in our country anymore, but I know their has been a bit of fakery by our left leaning media, with pictures in Melbourne of abusive gay parents being fabricated. I see the bullying is generally against those who disagree with gay "marraige". People have also lost their jobs for advocating no.

There is no good reason for it. We have civil unions, and Labour under Gillard made sure gay couples and civil unions have all the same entitlements as married couples. Marriage is religious ceremony, that's is roots. So government should really have no control over it at all, which is my opinion. My own vote on the pleb is no, already mailed back..

[RickD]

I get it Rick,
But somewhere there has to be protection against stupidity even under the guise of freedom of speech or freedom of religion. Those terms are not a blanket disclaimer of all things idiotic waved under a banner of freedom of religion or speech.
I think when Clergy start trawling through Facebook profiles the bigger issue lies in not what they may find but what on earth they're doing in the first place.
Social media has even corrupted the church

Protection by whom? The government?

I submit that if we let freedom take its course, there's a kind of protection built in to the system. If businesses and churches do stupid things, people will stop using their services, and stop going to their churches. In other words, if you run your business like an idiot, and truly discriminate against someone for who they are, then people will go elsewhere.

As far as pastors and churches doing stupid things, the government needs to stay the hell out of the churches. Don't you think it's a little ironic that someone who wants the church and state to be separate, wants government meddling in church business?

[melanie]

What's ironic is a marriage is a state sanctioned licence, registered by the attorney general under births, deaths and marriages. A state endorsed and sanctioned union.
It's can be by choice performed by a religious minister but falls under the legislative guidelines of the state.
The irony is in religion thinking they can dictate secular law.
The marriage act is passed through the senate, our governing body that dictates law.
By your reasoning Rick, its religion that should stay the hell out of secular law which is what marriage is.
To seperate government and church means that the church should not have any say in marriage as it's a bill passed by law and under the jurisdiction of state.

[RickD]

What's ironic is a marriage is a state sanctioned licence, registered by the attorney general under births, deaths and marriages. A state endorsed and sanctioned union.
It's can be by choice performed by a religious minister but falls under the legislative guidelines of the state.
The irony is in religion thinking they can dictate secular law.
The marriage act is passed through the senate, our governing body that dictates law.
By your reasoning Rick, its religion that should stay the hell out of secular law which is what marriage is.
To seperate government and church means that the church should not have any say in marriage as it's a bill passed by law and under the jurisdiction of state.

Did you really just say that the church shouldn't have any say in marriage?

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you're saying that the church, or the clergy in a religious body, should stay out of marriage?

So, you're saying that religion has no part in marriage?

Taken to its conclusion, just keep God out of marriage, and keep marriage solely a civil entity?

That's what you're saying?

[melanie]

I agree with RickD, no one has the right to force anyone to render their services. Such is anti-libertarian in the worst slavish way. Stupid people will just lose business when people "shop" elsewhere.

I don't watch the news in our country anymore, but I know their has been a bit of fakery by our left leaning media, with pictures in Melbourne of abusive gay parents being fabricated. I see the bullying is generally against those who disagree with gay "marraige". People have also lost their jobs for advocating no.

There is no good reason for it. We have civil unions, and Labour under Gillard made sure gay couples and civil unions have all the same entitlements as married couples. Marriage is religious ceremony, that's is roots. So government should really have no control over it at all, which is my opinion. My own vote on the pleb is no, already mailed back..

The plebiscite is ridiculous, a non binding opinion poll. This will be a matter decided in the senate by our politicians.
That's quite the claim K to say you don't watch the news and then go on to say what's happening within the debate. If you didn't hear it from the 'news' or you don't necessarily trust news reporting then I'm not sure how you could make a claim either way.
I did think it a little past you to make blanket 'leftist' accusations.
Especially considering that it's the right making the accusations, shock horror right? Each side being biased, only covering their agenda and being pretty unscrupulous in their accusations.
A heads up, I don't think that's a merely lefty thing.

You know the one thing I'm not hearing in this debate, which is the most important amoungst all the wild speculation. What is the new marriage bill? From a legality standpoint.
It is the most comprehensive marriage bill in Australian history. It does so much more than just add same sex marriage, we have learnt from the legal f ups from other countries and there are extensive accommodations and provisions for religious ministers and businesses.
That was the first thing I did when deciding my vote.
This bill has been shuffled through the senate for the last 18 months, dividing the conservative liberal government.
What does it entail? What are the legal and religious ramifications?

From a legal standpoint there are major differences between a civil union and marriage. Once you step outside your state you are no longer held under that state union. The minute you step outside your state domestically or internationally that union is not recognised.
Not every state in Australia even allows civil unions.

I get not everyone agrees and that's okay. I was out for dinner tonight with some friends and my mate grabbed my arm and said I voted yes and so did her hubby. I was shocked and asked her why and she told me it was because of me and a heated discussion we had at lunch a month earlier with friends. I was quite taken aback. I wasn't advocating for same sex marriage but was annoyed at the crappy arguments she brought up against it. She's not religious but it was just the regurgitated arguments of if we allow it then what stops incest, people wanting to marry animals,
and pedophilia ect
Australia is not going to pass laws to marry a giraffe, a 5 year old or your mother. If that's the worry then I think we're pretty safe.
This is not an easy decision for me but I just think people need to be informed and reasonable in their thinking.

[melanie]

What's ironic is a marriage is a state sanctioned licence, registered by the attorney general under births, deaths and marriages. A state endorsed and sanctioned union.
It's can be by choice performed by a religious minister but falls under the legislative guidelines of the state.
The irony is in religion thinking they can dictate secular law.
The marriage act is passed through the senate, our governing body that dictates law.
By your reasoning Rick, its religion that should stay the hell out of secular law which is what marriage is.
To seperate government and church means that the church should not have any say in marriage as it's a bill passed by law and under the jurisdiction of state.

Did you really just say that the church shouldn't have any say in marriage?

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you're saying that the church, or the clergy in a religious body, should stay out of marriage?

So, you're saying that religion has no part in marriage?

Taken to its conclusion, just keep God out of marriage, and keep marriage solely a civil entity?

That's what you're saying?

I was responding to your claim that government should stay the hell out of religion but pointing out the irony that religion is by the very legal nature of marriage poking its nose into secular matters.
The idea of separation of state and religion in matters of potential bills passing through a senate separates religion in the decision.
Democracy not theocracy right?

[RickD]

What's ironic is a marriage is a state sanctioned licence, registered by the attorney general under births, deaths and marriages. A state endorsed and sanctioned union.
It's can be by choice performed by a religious minister but falls under the legislative guidelines of the state.
The irony is in religion thinking they can dictate secular law.
The marriage act is passed through the senate, our governing body that dictates law.
By your reasoning Rick, its religion that should stay the hell out of secular law which is what marriage is.
To seperate government and church means that the church should not have any say in marriage as it's a bill passed by law and under the jurisdiction of state.

Did you really just say that the church shouldn't have any say in marriage?

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you're saying that the church, or the clergy in a religious body, should stay out of marriage?

So, you're saying that religion has no part in marriage?

Taken to its conclusion, just keep God out of marriage, and keep marriage solely a civil entity?

That's what you're saying?

I was responding to your claim that government should stay the hell out of religion but pointing out the irony that religion is by the very legal nature of marriage poking its nose into secular matters.
The idea of separation of state and religion in matters of potential bills passing through a senate separates religion in the decision.
Democracy not theocracy right?

So again I ask, are you saying that religion should have no part in marriage? I'm not sure where you're going with this.

As far as democracy vs theocracy, I actually think a republic is probably the best in this imperfect world.
Democracy vs Republic

[Philip]

The big question is, which is more dangerous - allowing the government to dictate what clergy and churches must or must not do - or keeping freedom from all angles? Is it right for the state to tell some inmam that he must marry me (a Christian) and my Muslim bride? See the danger? - leftists in the government will soon tell Christian pastors they have to marry any and all, no matter what their spiritual state is before Christ. Scripture says one thing, the government says another. Don't do what the state says - fines, jail! Eventually, all manner of Christian teachings can be declared "hate speech."

You talk about civil instability - THAT is when a great disruption will occur. And people on the far right will use it as a further excuse for their own hatred to spew. Churches will be hauled into court. Church assets sold to pay legal fees, fines, settlements. That is a total nightmare. You're gay, want to be married - go find someone willing to marry you! VERY simple - there is no shortage of such pastors - thus, the crisis is a manufactured one by the left. One pastor's convictions are that marriage is only to be performed by their own criterial and judgement (per their beliefs), and yet another has a much wider view of whom he can or will marry. So the state is taking a side, as if one side is superior: Leftist nonsense! It's all about controlling the church, defining what only a certain segment of society finds to be moral/immoral.

Thing is, God calls Christians to certain absolutes, per Scripture. You can either believe that or not. Or you can think that the state should dictate key absolutes - that's the solution of fascists, communists, socialists - and we've all seen how societies dominated by these "isms" have turned out: First thing - the word "freedom" becomes very differently defined, from the one free societies define it. NO democracy should ever consider such a thing - which is why our founding fathers had the wisdom to not favor any one faith, in it's constitutional documents. It's worked well for 200 years - and now there supposedly some crisis? Here and elsewhere, the crisis is manufacture by those with an agenda to control those they disagree with. Period!

Someone please tell me where someone is unduly harmed by having to seek certain services elsewhere? Not to mention, churches and pastors aren't merely proving a service, but are bringing their own value judgements and seal of approval to certain ceremonies, etc.

[Kurieuo]

I agree with RickD, no one has the right to force anyone to render their services. Such is anti-libertarian in the worst slavish way. Stupid people will just lose business when people "shop" elsewhere.

I don't watch the news in our country anymore, but I know their has been a bit of fakery by our left leaning media, with pictures in Melbourne of abusive gay parents being fabricated. I see the bullying is generally against those who disagree with gay "marraige". People have also lost their jobs for advocating no.

There is no good reason for it. We have civil unions, and Labour under Gillard made sure gay couples and civil unions have all the same entitlements as married couples. Marriage is religious ceremony, that's is roots. So government should really have no control over it at all, which is my opinion. My own vote on the pleb is no, already mailed back..

The plebiscite is ridiculous, a non binding opinion poll. This will be a matter decided in the senate by our politicians.
That's quite the claim K to say you don't watch the news and then go on to say what's happening within the debate.

Just because I don't watch news, doesn't mean I don't recieve it. I get to hear the annoying stuff going on via my other half, which I'd often prefer to not know because I find it... well... annoying. The news, especially in Australia, free-to-air and so on, including ABC is so fricken biassed, it's not worth anything to me.

[DBowling]

My .02

I don't think any minister, or any Christian for that matter, should be coerced into actively participating in or sanctioning any activity that is an open act of rebellion against God.
Which is very different from Christians spewing hatred towards sinners.
We are all sinners... Jesus gave his life for sinners.
We are to love sinners (not the sin) the same way that Jesus loved sinners.

If culture or the state wants to punish a Christian for obeying God rather than men, then Christians need to be prepared to deal with the consequences of following Christ.

Mat 5:10-11

10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

[Philip]

If culture or the state wants to punish a Christian for obeying God rather than men, then Christians need to be prepared to deal with the consequences of following Christ.

And how sad that any Christian would naively side with the state to put the Church in such a horrible position. Because that will make a person a willing participant in hurting Churches, wrecking them financially, facilitating determinations that pastors preaching various parts of Scripture can be deemed by the STATE as hate speech. FAR better, keep the state out of churches rights or their messages. Eliminate any entanglements of the state making a marriage official, OTHER THAN, documentation that both parties in a marriage have agreed to it - as this is how matters involving custody or distribution of income after death are decided, or emergency medical decisions are made - so there has to be some official certification as to what has been freely agreed by both parties, and whatever religious or documenting official connects them.

HUGE lie: That a minister unwilling to marry anyone per his or her church's teachings has truly harmed them or significantly inconvenienced people.

[RickD]

Guys,

The church didn't cancel the wedding of a gay couple. They canceled the wedding of a heterosexual couple who voiced their support for gay marriage on Facebook.

The pastor/priest/whatever, wasn't in a situation where he felt it was morally wrong for him to marry a specific couple because of their sexual orientation. He/his church chose not to marry them because of a specific belief they posted about on Facebook.

If the story is accurate, it was an idiotic decision by the church. But let the public punish the church by refusing to go there anymore. The govt has no place interfering in this issue.