Interview at The Pastor’s Heart

/ MurrayCampbell

Over at The Pastor’s Heart, Dominic Steele interviewed me about Public Christianity and the Victorian Government’s proposal to ban “harmful conversion practices”

 

 

2 thoughts on “Interview at The Pastor’s Heart”

  1. Dear Murray:
    Thankyou for this.
    If you consult the Marriage Act as amended December 2017 – including the prescription for the civil wedding ceremony and its footnotes – you can note that public-legal respect for husband-wife marriage has now been air-brushed out of the law’s wording. This state of affairs – a glaring issue completely missed by the Ruddock Panel of jurists in their report – is because the key “movers and shakers” of the law’s amendment, without actually saying so, were wanting change to the definition of marriage to bring the Marriage Act into line with the 2013 amendments to Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill. Hence, we now face the embarrassing situation that the question asked at the time of the bogus ABS survey was not: “Should the Marriage Act be amended to redefine marriage as a civil right?” It was a closed YES/NO closed question and “YES result” was not “overwhelming” as the naive Review of Labor’s Federal Election Campaign says but 48% (i.e. 60% of 80%). But the Marriage Act we now have in fact endorses the exclusion of due public-legal respect for husband-wife marriage from the law. And this is also part of the rationale of the Victorian Government’s proposed ban. Such changes are presented in one furtive “advance” after another and never in terms of an overall honest legislative agenda. There has been a furtively advance which just have the courage to say out loud that the belief that marriage is an exclusive husband-and-wife covenant is in fact a denial of civil rights to those who believe otherwise, those wish to define themselves merely as “persons” and not in terms of the allegedly”exclusionary” categories of male and female. It will be said therefore by the Victorian State Labor Government that their legislation is only to bring State Law into line with the Federal (re-)definition of marriage but there is simply no open discussion about the ruling interpretation of the Marriage Act – now supported by the Marriage Act’s wording – that we have actually seen a re-definition of what it means to be human written into the law by the elevation of “sexual identity” … and so it goes. Unravelling this complex political mess is not going to be easy. And in the meantime we face the kind of indiscriminate nonsense parading as justice from the furtive initiatives of Labor MPs in Victoria.

    Bruce C Wearne (PhD)
    Point Lonsdale

    Like

  2. Sorry about this; it should read: “There has been a furtive advance which just does not have the courage to say out loud that the belief that marriage is an exclusive husband-and-wife covenant is in fact a denial of civil rights to those who believe otherwise, those who wish to define themselves merely as “persons” and not in terms of the allegedly”exclusionary” categories of male and female.”

    Like

Comments are closed.