The same-sex marriage battle may look fruitlessly lost yet there are signs that perception on this issue may be turning around. Melbourne federal MP Adam Bandt forced other members to put the question to their constituents and this week the responses came back. While Bandt reported that his electorate gave same-sex marriage the overwhelming tick (and I'm talking like those in favour of same-sex marriage reportedly outnumbered 475 to 1) this did not reflect the rest of the electorates. Let's have a look at some of the responses (as provided by Crikey):
Hinkler MP Paul Neville called it a "vexed issue", stating there is no overwhelming concern in the community and that Australia has far more pressing issues that warrant the parliament's attention. In Hinkler, only 14 people were supportive of marriage equality, with 595 opposed. Neville expressed his own surprise at how little support there was in his electorate. He also quoted the now notorious Miranda Devine column on the perils of a fatherless society, stating that the notion of "downplay[ing] traditional marriage" was an issue that resonated with him strongly.
Fowler MP Chris Hayes reported that feedback in his electorate was overwhelmingly in opposition: of the 395 votes cast, over 90% said no to same-sex marriage. Hayes said he "does not apologise for the view of his electorate".
George Christensen from the seat of Dawson called Bandt's marriage proposal "pointless", saying voters had "more important concerns than this". Of those he surveyed, only 78 out of 456 were for same-sex marriage. Christensen also accused GetUp of attempting to skew public opinion and "subvert the democratic process" by using fake emails in marriage equality petitions. He also raised concerns any change would "weaken the foundations of our society", with the definition of marriage being the only argument we have against polygamy or multiple other types of unions.
Denison independent Andrew Wilkie noted both sides agree on the "enduring importance of marriage" and both camps claim a majority of support, making it difficult to determine numbers.
Liberal MP Kelly O'Dwyer reported that same-s-x marriage was not in the top four issues of concern nominated by the people of Higgins.
Graham Perrett from Moreton stated that of the 1373 responses he received, 44% were supportive of gay marriage, 53% were against and 3% were unsure. Perrett noted these results did not include Carl Katter, as he had already "come out yesterday".
Alex Hawke, member for Mitchell, the electorate with the highest rate of couples with dependent children, stated there was broad support in his electorate to legally recognise same-sex unions but this did not extend to changing the definition of marriage itself.
Fraser MP Andrew Leigh said most people who contacted him would like to see a change to the current laws.
Gippsland member Darren Chester does not support "changes to the Marriage Act" himself, and of the 700 responses he received, 64% were opposed to change.
Member for Blair Shayne Neuman received 580 responses supporting marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and 150 responses supportive of change.
Cowan MP Luke Simpkins stated those who have made their views known "strongly and utterly support the current definition of marriage", with 903 supporting the current definition and 103 supporting change.
Deakin member Mike Symon said he was astounded by the volume of response to the motion. With the exclusion of lobbyists and unverified emails, only 6.02% of Deakin constituents were for same-sex marriage and 93.98% against, but a large number of these supported civil unions.
Member for Hume Alby Schultz said the motion did nothing more than "indulge the fantasies of the inner-city elites" and he was "deeply offended ... for being told how to do [his] job". Forty-six verifiable constituents contacted Shultz in support of equal marriage rights, and 635 constituents contacted him supporting the "Howard government's definition" of marriage as between a man and a woman.
Sharon Grierson from the inner-city electorate of Newcastle was the first member of parliament to sign the charter supporting same-sex marriage. She said 800 people who contacted her office were supportive of change and 470 against.
Fadden MP Stuart Robert reported an overwhelming response in favour of the current definition of marriage, with 30 to one against change.
Catherine King from Ballarat was contacted over 1800 times and states that views are divided and passionately held on both sides.
Scott Morrison, the Cook MP, conducted an electorate-wide survey last year on several issues of importance, and said the issue of the day "frankly did not feature". A specific survey conducted by Morrison on the issue of marriage equality saw more than 850 against change and 50 in favour.
Labor minister Anthony Albanese spoke of his pride in the Labor Party for having changed 84 pieces of legislation to eliminate discrimination against same-sex couples. He also stated the issue will be discussed at the Labor Party's national conference.
Malcolm Turnbull, the Liberal minister from Wentworth, a seat with a high proportion of gay constituents, received a response from 2333 voters. Of these, 72.7% were in favour of same-sex marriage; 16.8% were not supportive but favoured civil unions; 7.2% were against both gay marriage and civil unions and 3.2% were against gay marriage but did not express a view on civil unions.
In a yes/no survey with 505 responses, Shortland MP Jill Hall had 86% of her constituents answer "yes" to gay marriage and 13% answer "no".
Kooyong member Josh Frydenberg said simply he had received passionate responses from both sides of the debate.
Deb O'Neill from Robertson reported that 70% of her constituents wanted to retain the current definition of marriage.
Tony Crook, the member for O'Connor, stated the results from his electorate "were indicative of the rest of the nation". Of the 612 responses received, the majority do not support same-sex marriage.
Lyne MP Rob Oakeshott has "chosen to follow the community on the issue of same-s-x marriage". After wide consultation, Oakeshott concluded there is a deep conviction that the state's definition of marriage does matter. In Oakeshott's electorate, results out of five were two strongly opposed, two indifferent and one in favour.
Bruce Billson, member for Dunkley, acknowledged the power of the word "marriage" and that the expansion of this term could be detrimental. A significant portion of the community represented by Billson would like their relationships to continue to be acknowledged under the traditional definition of "marriage."
Member for Reid John Murphy received feedback from a diverse range of people and groups, and states there is no unanimous view amongst these groups, "even in the gay community." However, most feedback "supported the retention of the current definition of marriage".
Menzies MP Kevin Andrews said the purpose of the motion was merely "to provide a voice to the Greens." The vast majority of Andrews constituents are against a change in the definition of marriage.
Mark Coulton, member for Parkes, stated that the overwhelming response from his electorate was that there were other matters of far greater importance, and that he himself finds it "deeply confronting" that the Parliament could be "hijacked" by one member, Adam Bandt.
Bradfield MP Paul Fletcher said he has carried out significant consultation on this matter, and the majority of his constituents support the retention of the current legal definition of marriage.
Here is MP Josh Frydenberg's statement:
Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!
(clause: relationship registers are a dangerous compromise and should not be accepted)
Another great article in The Australian speaking on the right to have a voice in this debate:
"None of these difficulties are insurmountable, but each demands careful consideration. Australia needs to "have the conversation" that the proponents of social change are urging upon us, but such proponents should not dictate who speaks and what they should or should not be allowed to say. Counter-cultural revolutionaries of the 1960s and 70s were prepared to go to prison to fight censorship."
Yes, friends. The tide may well be turning. If nothing else Bandt's attempt to force his radical agenda on Parliament have backfired.
The dust has settled upon a nation now destitute. Britain has been rocked by excessive riots that has left experts scrambling for reasons. The UK Centre For Social Justice claims that it is the break down of marriage that has caused the rioting. Usually I am disinclined to agree with any group promoting social justice as ultimate importance however this report may be on to something. As Bill Muehlenberg says:
“When we play fast and loose with fathers and marriage we simply invite the sort of barbarism witnessed in London to become mainstream. We had better wise up before it is too late.”
“When fathers have little ongoing connection to or oversight over their children, the protective structures of family are diminished. When nihilism replaces a common morality broadly based on religious values, responsibility to the wider community is lost. When people at the margins of society are relieved of personal responsibility to work and contribute to the community, and are left to live aimless, dependent lives, the type of anarchy we have witnessed in Britain is never far away.”
Britain has divorced itself from God and laid waste to His commandments. It has created its own morals and lives in an age of self obsession. There are many who legitimately believe that it is better to keep God out of a countries affairs (as if that was what the concept of Church and state was designed for). One only has to turn to Isaiah 1 to see God's message to a nation that had turned its back on Him:
“Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, children who deal corruptly! They have forsaken the Lord, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they are utterly estranged.
Why will you still be struck down? Why will you continue to rebel? The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, but bruises and sores and raw wounds; they are not pressed out or bound up or softened with oil.
Your country lies desolate; your cities are burned with fire; in your very presence foreigners devour your land; it is desolate, as overthrown by foreigners.”
Isaiah 1:4-7
It it time for us to stop standing dumbly while Satan uses our fellow men as pawns. To Satan man is expendable but to God man is worth dying for. As the saved we need to be interceding for the lost. We need to be prayer warriors for a hurting nation and a broken world.
We live in a generation where repentance is particularly unfashionable. Even amongst Christian young adults there seems to be a reluctance to purge ourselves from our sins and kneel unashamedly before the cross. Instead we play off our transgressions and usually forget about the ways we wrong God. We abuse God's forgiveness and pretend as if the mistakes we make are modest and act as if we are cool with God.
This is not a healthy relationship with God. It allows us to believe that we have a monopoly over our own salvation. Hence we do not come before the Lord in contrition but believe that our social life is reflective of Christian living. This is not Christian living! It is merely a Christian social club. Participating in Church and bible study and youth group do not alleviate the ultimate requirement to be convicted of your sin. This means to identify the muck in your life and feel the agony that God experiences when God sees our inequities. As Paul states to the Church of Corinth:
“As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting. For you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us. For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death.”
2 Corinthians 7:9-10
A great example of this contrition is King David in his response to committing adultery and murder.
“Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin!
For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment. Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. Behold, you delight in truth in the inward being, and you teach me wisdom in the secret heart.....”
Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!
We are totally dependant upon God's forgiveness of us. We are not Christians because of evidence but because of faith vested the power of a saviour. I pity the man who changes his mind because of evidence. Yes creation sings the name of its creator but an understanding that God exists does not lead to the Cross, to repentance. A changed mind is not a changed heart. Rationality does not lead a man to agonising over his corrupt heart. It is with humility that I turn to God. My career or my university education will not save me from His coming wrath.
“[I]f my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”
For the most part it is hard to speculate about why a marriage break-up occurred. Even in regards to celebrities there remains a fair degree of ambiguity hidden behind the well-thought-out publicity statements. Perhaps it is better if the layperson does not know why celebrity couples break-up.
On occasion we are given "inside information" as to why a couple have broken up. Like, for instance, why the king of bizarre cooking Heston Blumenthal has left his wife. He left wife of twenty-two years, Zanna, for fellow chef Suzanne Pirret, author of the cookbook The Pleasure Is All Mine. It is disappointing that such a split has occurred. No doubt it will be said that twenty-two years is a good effort by today's standards, however, this does not reflect the commitment that Heston made to his wife and her to him. The union of a marriage is to last a lifetime, not a mere twenty-two years.
It would appear that Heston has left his wife to be with this younger, prettier woman. This is fairly typical of celebrities because it is a tendency that is prevalent everywhere you look. The idea is that you settle with someone until a better someone comes along (usually better aesthetically). Of course this is just ridiculous self-indulgence that outweighs the commitment to ones previous partner. Yet there is no rational reason why somebody shouldn't participate in doomed relationships in this way if they prescribed to an atheist worldview. After all this life is the only one we have and at the end of our puny existence we will all just turn to dust. If this is the case then we should always act in a way that will benefit us the greatest.
It could be said that I am only speculating as to what Heston may or may not have done (for instance, had they been separated for a while and only recently announced it publically?). However, this is irrelevant. What is important is 1. marriage is meant for life; and 2. many people (particularly young adults) participate in "upgradable relationships". I would challenge anyone who has such a mindset to consider the good of the other person in the relationship. Relationships are not an end in themselves. A dating relationship should bring a couple towards marriage (which is a commitment for the rest of your life). Anything else is unfair to both parties and doomed to destruction. Marriage is not merely a government-prescribed institution it is God-ordained as a union of strength that represents Christ and the Church.
Back on topic, I did some research on Heston's new love interest Suzanne Pirret. She, like Heston, is a chef yet while he cooks with overly dramatic flair she employs the erotic. No doubt the title of her book The Pleasure Is All Mine gives you some idea about the style she is aiming for. She has been compared to Nigella Lawson who combines her cooking with innuendo and all kinds of sensual techniques:
Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!
Now I love cooking so much that I went out and bought 16 new cookbooks yesterday (cheap, from South Wharf DFO), however, the fact that sexuality is now intermingling with cooking states how inundated our society has become. Suzanne Pirret is of the same cloth. Here is an excerpt from her book dripping in sensuality and passion. There is extreme danger in a passion not tempered by biblical wisdom. Though, perhaps, this is typical of feminist philosophy.
Galations 5:24
Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
A friend recently told me of a session at a Christian University group where the speaker addressed the large contingency on theistic evolution. Theistic evolution is the belief that evolution is merely the mechanism which God designed as a natural process to be used after creation.
Now creation and evolution are contrasting views, even if somebody says they believe in both a creator and the evolution mechanism, such a union is incompatible. And such a union is dangerous as it undermines the authority of Scripture, particularly that of Genesis. Ken Ham elaborates on this compromise:
I believe this is what happened: The older generations in the Church allowing the teaching of evolution and/or millions of years to be added to the Bible. They didn’t realize the true nature of what was happening. Most of these people believed the Bible to be the infallible, inerrant Word of God. They just added evolutionary teaching (e.g., millions of years of history) to this. But the next generation then grew up already disbelieving Genesis. This, I’m convinced, has led to generations in the Church being sceptical about the Bible’s teaching in many other areas. They lost a sense of absolutes.
Creation Evangelism for the New Millennium, Ken Ham, pg 83
So the danger rests in our interpretation of scripture. As R.C. Sproul affirms “the Bible becomes a chameleon changing the color of its skin against the changing background of the people doing the interpreting” (Knowing Scripture, R. C. Sproul, pg 53). Albert Mohler also decries theistic evolution: “[i]n my view, any Christian form of theistic evolution is a contradiction in terms. At the end of the day, the theological modifications required by the acceptance of evolution are vast and utterly disastrous for biblical Christianity” (http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/10/11/science-and-religion-arent-friends/). Also check out Albert Mohler's radio program.
If you still maintain that that theistic evolution is not dangerous, read this article from creation.com. We are faced with a choice. We either reinterpret scripture because of the self-proclaimed “scientific evidence” or we can remain grounded on the inerrancy of the Bible. The first is such a compromise (particularly by any Christian leader) that we should question how we could give any credence to their interpretation of scripture. Or indeed on any social issues. For example:
“When America had the foundation [of creation] (God’s Word is truth), then when someone said “abortion is wrong,” on this former foundation a person would say, “Yes, you are right. Abortion is sin.”
Because the culture has changed its foundation to “man’s opinions determine truth” (evolution), then when the same message is preached, “abortion is wrong,” the answer is more like this: “What are you talking about? I have a right to do what I want with my body. We’re just animals anyway. No one has a right to tell me what to do”.”
Creation Evangelism for the New Millennium, Ken Ham, pg 88
Unfortunately there are many Christians who do not understand this and teach a compromised message of Genesis that fits neatly within what vocal scientists declare is reality. One such website is The BioLogos Forum, founded by Francis Collins. This website seems to genuinely seek an interrelationship between science and faith. Unfortunately, in doing so, there is a compromise of biblical understanding. As stated on the About Us page:
We have found that the methods of the natural sciences provide the most reliable guide to understanding the material world, and the current evidence from science indicates that the diversity of life is best explained as a result of an evolutionary process. Thus we affirm that evolution is a means by which God providentially achieves His purposes.
Perhaps humanists have a greater grasp upon the stupidity of the statement above than those who profess to be a Christian yet continue to believe in evolution do.
“If all the animals and man had been evolved in this ascendant manner, then there had been no first parents, no Eden, and no Fall. And if there had been no fall, then the entire historical fabric of Christianity, the story of the first sin and the reason for an atonement, upon which the current teaching based Christian emotion and morality, collapsed like a house of cards.”
The outline of history — being a plain history of life and mankind, H. G. Wells, pg 616
Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!
