Triumph this week that same-sex marriage supporters had won the online clicking war against marriage opponents in the House of Representatives survey is likely to be short-lived.
No matter what happens with the two parliamentary inquiries currently being held into same-sex marriage, the outcome still rests on how MPs vote when the relevant legislation is before them.
It certainly doesn鈥檛 hurt that 58 percent of respondents to the House of Representatives survey were in favour of change. It鈥檚 a great momentum boost, but numbers can only be crunched so far.
As has been the case since the Labor Party voted to change its platform position on the issue last year, the fate of marriage equality rests with the Coalition.
Labor MPs will be allowed a conscience vote, but so far Opposition leader Tony Abbott has not been moved to offer Coalition MPs the same courtesy.
Abbott said he made a promise before the election not to change the Marriage Act, so he won鈥檛.
It鈥檚 a difficult argument to counter, and Abbott knows it.
For those in favour of change 鈥� which, on best estimates, is most Australians 鈥� Abbott鈥檚 position is infuriating. When is the Coalition ever going to go to an election promising to allow same-sex marriage?
But Abbott knows, as long as this issue remains unresolved, it will become increasingly uncomfortable, and personal, given his own sister has recently come out and supports marriage equality.
So one must focus instead on the age-old method of change 鈥� from the grassroots up.
This month the East Sydney Liberal Party branch voted unanimously to call on federal Liberal MPs to be allowed a conscience vote on the issue.
While I鈥檓 doubtful too many other Liberal branches will take the same step, there are certainly pockets of support among rank-and-file party members. These members need to step up and make their voices heard at party meetings. It is here a little effort could go a long way to push for change.
Don’t you love these Christians? Koj, a man “doesn’t lieth with another man as he lieth with a woman”. It’s different!
Well written Andie.
Things will change. Slowly. But they WILL change x
Correct me if Im wrong, but society/laws and governments evolve…. we learn, we become educated, we realise our mistakes… and correct them.
If we didnt then: women would still be unable to vote, aboriginals would still not be citizens in their own country, homosexuality would still be a criminal offence, Australia would only have “white” immigrants….etc etc etc.
This is a civil rights/human rights issue…. marriage equality for all people… not just for the bible quoting hypocrites….. after all…. if the bible says gay is wrong… it also says women who are not virgins when time to marry should be executed….. let common sense prevail!
God is the ultimate and sovereign judge for sin. Homosexuality is sin by His order; it is not decided by public opinion or deceived/false clergy.
Changing societies do not dictate God’s standards. Sin is defined by God for us in the Bible. It is the source for what God says is holy and righteous or sin and abomination.
Hebrews 13:8 states that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever; he does not 鈥済o with the flow.鈥�
Sexual sins were rampant in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. (This is the origin of the word sodomy.) Despite warnings, they refused to repent. God destroyed those cities and it was recorded as a warning to all future generations. (Genesis 18:20-21, Genesis 19:4-5, 2 Peter 2:6) Some additional scriptures on homosexuality are found in:
Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Romans 1:26-27
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
The price paid for homosexuality and other fornications are told in:
* 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
* Jude 6-7
* Romans 1:18
In spite of the growing secular humanist trend to think “it’s ok to be gay,” it’s not a righteous lifestyle. Most vocal Christians are not homophobic, but are trying to share Christ’s love for homosexuals and trying to keep them from horrific judgment.
Is homosexuality a sin? Is there hope for forgiveness?
There absolutely is hope for homosexuals. God can cleanse and purify all persons from sin. As many scriptures as there are that address sin, there are more that speak of forgiveness and redemption. He is able to give deliverance to any who sincerely desire true freedom and salvation. Such is demonstrated in 1 Corinthians 6:11 (KJV): “And such were some of you: but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” This verse says 鈥渟ome of you were,鈥� meaning they became past acts.
We are offered the empowering Spirit of God to help us turn from our sins. Coming out of drug addiction, homosexuality, pornography, or other sin isn’t always easy but God will provide the way. Christians are to “love” into the kingdom, those who desire repentance and to live by His natural plan.
Jesus Christ died on the cross for all of our sins and rose again the third day. He desires that we repent and be forgiven of our sins by coming into a personal relationship with Him.
“Abbott said he made a promise before the election not to change the Marriage Act, so he won鈥檛.
It鈥檚 a difficult argument to counter, and Abbott knows it.”
Can someone explain the logic behind this to me? I’m stumped!
If he made an election promise, and subsequently LOST the election, then why can’t he change the policy?
Does it follow that any policy, once announced, can never be changed? If it can’t be changed if you lose an election, nor if you win an election, then when?
Confused.
What an interesting opening with the words “online clicking war against marriage opponents”. Sorry but I was not aware that by voting against same-sex marriage I was a “marriage opponent” just a “same-sex marriage opponent. Perhaps the author is trying to say something here, but marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. If you start referring to those who oppose your cause as “marriage opponents” then you are clearly not understanding the reality of the debate Andie.