As Christians across the land protest against the proposed amendments to the Marriage Acts of 1961 (i.e. the desire to remove all gender distinctions from the definition of marriage and hence allowing gay partnerships to be called marriage) Luke Mac raised an interesting point.
He thought "we should separate the state's concept of marriage from the Church's concept of marriage. Our understanding of marriage is already fundamentally different to the world's anyway."
In other words, in these debates we must be careful that we are not expecting non-Christians to behave like Christians. The Kingdom of God will come by people surrendering to Christ as their king, not by legislation that tries to make people behave the way we think they should. (Luke's right by the way.)
However, the danger with this argument is that it has been used by Christians in the past to justify our withdrawal from politics. On issues like this we must not try to create a theocracy, but we do have a responsibility to speak up for what we think is best for our society.
Hence I think the key issue in the current debate is the role of children in marriage. The definition proposed by the new bill does not mention children at all. This is slight of hand. It is made to look as if it is all about giving gay couples the same rights (in expressing commitment) as straight couples. However, the definition of family is being changed by default. Marriage has traditionally included the possibility of children. If this bill is passed then we will have accepted that two mums or two dads are just as healthy as role models as a mum and a dad, and we will have accepted that without a public debate.
That is why we should be submitting our objections to this bill to the senate committe for legal and constitutional matters.
He thought "we should separate the state's concept of marriage from the Church's concept of marriage. Our understanding of marriage is already fundamentally different to the world's anyway."
In other words, in these debates we must be careful that we are not expecting non-Christians to behave like Christians. The Kingdom of God will come by people surrendering to Christ as their king, not by legislation that tries to make people behave the way we think they should. (Luke's right by the way.)
However, the danger with this argument is that it has been used by Christians in the past to justify our withdrawal from politics. On issues like this we must not try to create a theocracy, but we do have a responsibility to speak up for what we think is best for our society.
Hence I think the key issue in the current debate is the role of children in marriage. The definition proposed by the new bill does not mention children at all. This is slight of hand. It is made to look as if it is all about giving gay couples the same rights (in expressing commitment) as straight couples. However, the definition of family is being changed by default. Marriage has traditionally included the possibility of children. If this bill is passed then we will have accepted that two mums or two dads are just as healthy as role models as a mum and a dad, and we will have accepted that without a public debate.
That is why we should be submitting our objections to this bill to the senate committe for legal and constitutional matters.
