Unfortunately, it seems my optimism about equal rights for same sex couples was a little premature. I note that John Howard has quashed the ACT’s proposed civil union laws, and the Australian Christian Lobby has said that this was right.
I have no problem with religious groups setting their own rules about who can and can’t marry within their religion. That is their right. I can have a view one way or the other about whether they are right, but unless I choose to be a part of the religion, I don’t think it’s up to me to determine their rules. But I do not think that religious groups of any “flavour” should have a power of veto over same sex civil unions, which by their very nature, do not involve God or questions of religion at all.
That’s my five cents’ worth.
2 Comments
June 20, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Agree totally. Two further observations can be made even if one works on the assumption that homosexuality is indeed a moral abomination:
1. Same sex unions would tend to legitimise same sex relationships, leading to more stable, more monogamous and in any event less promiscuous partnerships. Is it not relatively less sinful for homosexual acts to take place in that sort of framework than for it to be pushed underground, which inevitably encourages promiscuity (given that long-term, stable relationships can attract unwelcome attention from others if same-sex relationships are not respected)?
2. On the religious front: didn’t God give Adam and Eve and all humankind free will? If a person makes a deliberate choice to sin is it not their right to do so provided that they are not harming innocent third parties? Can’t a person choose hell ahead of heaven?
May 21, 2007 at 6:59 pm
[...] me an example of what you mean, Legal Eagle, I hear you say. Well, recently, I had a post dealing with a law allowing civil unions for same sex partners, and I stated my horror that [...]