A Post by Dr John
Quinn
One of the hot button issues in the current
federal parliament is the issue of marriage equality, or the right of people of
the same sex to enter into marriage relationships. Much of the debate and
discussion on this issue has focused on the ‘traditional’ definition of
marriage, and the extent to which that can be altered. Proponents of marriage equality are adamant
that marriage has a legal definition and as such can be changed on the say-so
of the Parliament. Others contend that
marriage is a historical and traditional institution, with a meaning fixed-in-time
and thereby unalterable. In one of the
more colourful contributions to the debate, Nationals Senate leader Barnaby
Joyce said on Meet the Press in
August last year “it is like saying, ‘I have a four-wheel bicycle.’
It is fine if it has four wheels but it’s just not a bicycle”[i].
It goes without saying that marriage equality poses
some difficulties for evangelical Christians, and it is heartening to see
Christian leaders such as Archbishop Peter Jensen making serious and thoughtful
contributions to the debate.[ii] That said, the debate also raises deep
questions about the nature of lawmaking and the reach of government power that,
to a large extent, have not been scrutinized. A significant number of Parliamentarians
and advocates for marriage equality are utterly convinced that it is within the
remit of the government to examine the definition of marriage, and to re-write
it. Even some of those defending a
traditional view of marriage are engaging in the debate in such a way that
recognizes the parliament’s authority on the issue. If we accept that the parliament has the
power to define marriage, we might justifiably ask what its next intrusion into
the social fabric might be.
Until the Marriage Act of 1753, there was no statutory
requirement to register a marriage relationship and the government had little
authority over the process of getting married. That Act introduced a requirement for the
marriage to be conducted before a priest of the Church of England, with
exceptions for Jews and Quakers. So began the process of government
intervention in questions of marriage that continues to this day. With the
passage of time the statute has continued to evolve, introducing celebrants and
various restrictions over who can and can’t marry. Common law marriage, which
the statute effectively replaced, has been slowly disappearing from most
jurisdictions.
 |
| Photo courtesy Wiki commons |
Many of those arguing strenuously for marriage
equality are also those who would argue that religious organizations or
religious thought have no part in public life, in spite of the significant
historical role that churches have played in the institution of marriage. For these proponents, the “separation of
church and state” has been become a useful catchphrase in sidelining Christian
thought from public discussion. On the
other hand, the same proponents do not seem to hesitate at the prospect of the
state legislating in areas of personal morality or personal religious conviction,
even in area like marriage where the government’s role has been, in the greater
scheme of things, a relatively recent addition.
As Christian people we ought to recognize the
authority of government and seek to live quietly in submission to ruling
authorities: such is clear from Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17. At the same time, the book of Revelation
encourages a healthy concern about what over-reaching authorities might do, and
the difficulties that might bring upon Christian people. As Christian people we
ought to be attentive to the debate about marriage equality, not only because
of the Christian view of that institution, but also because of what it says
about the government’s perception of its own authority.
Dr John Quinn is Dean of Residents at the
New College Village
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment