Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Quality childcare in a
welcoming & supportive environment

Christian Lobby hits the ACT Greens with a Please Explain on polyamory

By johnboy 17 July 2012 65

The Australian Christian Lobby is mad keen for the ACT Greens’ Generalissimo Meredith Hunter to let us know what she thinks about polyamorous marriage (Big Love).

“Given the Greens have been strong proponents for Territory-based civil unions that mimic marriage, Ms Hunter needs to explain whether we will see a Greens-led push for polyamorous or polygamous civil unions in the ACT,” Mr Shelton said.

I’ve always been a big fan of The Pogues view on the subject “Two wives are allowed in the Army, but one’s too many for me”.

Should we hear back from the Greens we’ll let you know.

UPDATE 17/07/12 13:37 A Greens spokesperson had this to say:

ACT Greens policy platform, as endorsed April 2012 states:

“ACT Greens want legislative amendment to the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961 to allow for legal marriage between two consenting adults regardless of sexuality or gender identity.”

Also available here:

Views expressed to the contrary are in a personal capacity.

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
65 Responses to
Christian Lobby hits the ACT Greens with a Please Explain on polyamory
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
johnboy 2:35 pm 18 Jul 12

Mysteryman said :

He would seem more credible if he didn’t make inaccurate statements.

I’d back him over you. Anything in particular you want to use or are we just handwaving?

Mysteryman 2:28 pm 18 Jul 12

johnboy said :

Simon Jenkins recently had an excellent article in the Guardian on how the church only recently got involved in the marriage game and dragged the state along for the ride.

If any proof were needed for church disestablishment, it is the capacity of canon lawyers to find quarrels in straws. What consenting adults do in private should be of no concern to governments, and that applies to worship as much as sex. If grownups want to dress in Tudor costume, douse babies in water, intone over the dead and do strange things with wine and wafers, it is a free country. But for a Christian sect to claim ownership of the legal definition of a human relationship is way out of order.

The church has a dreadful record on marriage. Rome placed chastity and celibacy as the highest state of man (and woman), while marriage was for the fallen. As Milton said, the church regarded matrimony as a state of disgrace, “a work of the flesh, almost a defilement”. Only when medieval bishops saw where the money was did they declare marriage “so sacramental that no adultery or desertion could dissolve it”.

Throughout the middle ages the church struggled to gain control of what had been an essentially secular contract between men and women. It was not until the 13th century that weddings had to be hallowed by a priest, even if this meant little more than an exchange of vows in a porch. Churches tried to bribe couples to the altar, as by giving them sides of bacon (hence “bringing home the bacon”). Common law marriage in England was not outlawed until 1753.

He would seem more credible if he didn’t make inaccurate statements.

Baldy 1:05 pm 18 Jul 12

poetix said :

That’s Malcolm Turnbull, and I wish that he was still leader of the Liberals.

As a swinging voter who has given up hope of voting for any of the major parties until someone decent comes along, so do I.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | | |

Search across the site