Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Opinion

Expert strata, facilities & building management services

New low in marriage equality debate

By Steven Bailey - 11 June 2015 73

couple-stock

Well written, well read. That’s the motto of Canberra print title City News. But as Canberrans turned the first page to read this week’s featured article, a turgid diatribe written by Nick Jenson proclaiming that he and his wife may divorce if gay people are allowed to legally marry, the ACT found itself at the centre of a new and bigoted low in the fight for marriage equality.

Jenson, a prominent affiliate of the Australian Christian Lobby, reasons that although he and his wife are deeply in love, they cannot “as a matter of conscience, recognise the government’s regulation of marriage if its definition includes the solemnisation of same-sex couples.”

The mean-spirited invective in the guise of Christian probity continues as the naive and deluded ideologue declares that “by changing the definition of marriage, ‘marriage’ will, in years to come, have an altogether different sense and purpose. We no longer wish to be associated with this new definition.”

Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.

Until only recently, it seemed that same sex marriage would be unattainable in Australia during Abbott’s reign. But as many countries around the world begin to legislate for marriage equality, it is increasingly more likely that Abbott will succumb to the political opportunism of allowing a free vote within the Federal Parliament. Abbott knows that as objectionable the notion of two loving and consenting adults marrying is to him, it may be politically imperative to secure his survival for a second term.

The opponents to marriage equality have had to rally their troops faster than expected and, as a result, will resort to the desperate tactics that we have seen from Canberra couple Nick and Sarah Jenson.

Of course, the Jensons have to realise that we don’t care if they divorce. The argument for marriage equality is predicated on love and justice.

If the Jensons are prepared to dissolve their marriage because they reject the notion that two consenting and loving adults might marry, it only proves to the rest of Canberra, and Australia, that their marriage is not based on love at all. Their union is based on doctrine and scripture rather than a visceral and heartfelt need to be together.

The cause for marriage equality will be won by demonstrating the best of our humanity. In the face of hatred, rather than become hateful ourselves, we must demonstrate our humanity.

As painful as it may be for our young gay and lesbian children and brothers and sisters, we need to rise above the hatred that is directed towards them. That the opponents to marriage equality have sunk to a new low is simply an opportunity for the rest of Australia to rise above them.

Nick and Sarah Jenson, I forgive you.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
73 Responses to
New low in marriage equality debate
Maya123 5:16 pm 11 Jun 15

“Err, who is Wil Anderson?”
Google it. I needed to. Ah, yes, I then said, him. Obviously I shouldn’t get out so much.

dungfungus 4:50 pm 11 Jun 15

Holden Caulfield said :

I assume they already know they won’t meet the requirements for a divorce, which aside from nothing else, would surely go against their Christian beliefs.

And then there’s the fact that state-sanctioned marriages have been possible for years (ie. without any association to any religion), which appears to be his biggest beef with gay marriage.

It’s a publicity stunt, nothing more.

The Irish referendum was a stunt also considering that 40% of eligible voters cared not to be involved.
I am sure a referendum on the same question in Australia would be a resounding NO considering voting is compulsory here.
In Ireland, the Yes vote prevailed by 62 to 38 per cent with a 60.5 per cent turnout.
I can’t see what all the fuss is about.

Ezy 4:49 pm 11 Jun 15

Probably the best piece in response to the CityAds… I mean, CityNews article.

http://www.sbs.com.au/comedy/article/2015/06/11/same-sex-couple-threaten-not-give-shit-if-other-couple-divorces

dungfungus 4:44 pm 11 Jun 15

rosscoact said :

dungfungus said :

Tymefor said :

Wil Anderson ?@Wil_Anderson · 6h6 hours ago
If marriage equality means gay people can get married and bigoted people get divorced, I consider that a win-win for marriage…

win

Err, who is Wil Anderson?

You wouldn’t know him.

Obviously, or I wouldn’t have asked. I’ll accept that he is a nobody then.

Mumbucks 4:39 pm 11 Jun 15

Disagreeing with a minority doesn’t make one a bigot.
Declaring your values in this climate whether others agree with you is commendable.
Well done the Jensons.

Rollersk8r 4:35 pm 11 Jun 15

Well it’s certainly huge publicity for a freebie magazine. I’m surprised nobody’s thought of this angle before now, considering the high profile couples who refuse to get married until the law is changed.

bryansworld 4:05 pm 11 Jun 15

This whole debate. I don’t understand why equal billing is given to bigots. Well, I do. The media loves conflict. But equal billing should not be given to bigots. If I started a racist rant, I would be rightly abused and put in my place. Why is bigotry acceptable and treated like a reasonable point of view in this debate?

rosscoact 3:59 pm 11 Jun 15

dungfungus said :

Tymefor said :

Wil Anderson ?@Wil_Anderson · 6h6 hours ago
If marriage equality means gay people can get married and bigoted people get divorced, I consider that a win-win for marriage…

win

Err, who is Wil Anderson?

You wouldn’t know him.

dungfungus 3:53 pm 11 Jun 15

Tymefor said :

Wil Anderson ?@Wil_Anderson · 6h6 hours ago
If marriage equality means gay people can get married and bigoted people get divorced, I consider that a win-win for marriage…

win

Err, who is Wil Anderson?

chewy14 3:51 pm 11 Jun 15

As a libertarian Steven, why on earth would you not understand the problems that this couple have highlighted? And why would you not support their wish to live their lives as they want to? What business is it of yours if they get divorced?

Their argument is actually quite interesting and it provides the exact reasons why the state shouldn’t be involved in people’s relationships and most definitely shouldn’t be solemnising their “love”. The Jensen’s may be a nutty, religious couple but they are correct when they say that the government shouldn’t be changing or redefining marriage, mainly because they shouldn’t be involved at all. It exemplifies the stupidity of state involvement in treating certain relationships and love as special or different from others.

The government should stick to the legal issues relating to relationships such as property or children and completely divorce itself from the rest.

We need a civil union bill where any couple can go to a government office, sign a contract and have their relationship recognised for legal matters. Then they can go off and have a ceremony, a party, pray to whatever sky fairy they wish or simply do nothing, it’s got nothing to do with the government. Then if you wanted to, you can call your own relationship a marriage, a partnership, a Jesus threesome, an evil allegiance or whatever.

The amount of invective these people have been given for simply living their lives the way they want to is a joke.

justin heywood 3:38 pm 11 Jun 15

John Moulis said :

This publicity stunt by the Australian Christian Lobby is up there (or down there) with their “homosexuality is worse than smoking” nonsense of a couple of years back.

I was thinking more of a publicity stunt by the CityNews rather than the Christian Lobby.

I think most media media normally ignore the nuttier fringe, but CityNews sure hit the publicity jackpot by giving these two some space. It’s all over the web.

John Moulis 3:25 pm 11 Jun 15

This publicity stunt by the Australian Christian Lobby is up there (or down there) with their “homosexuality is worse than smoking” nonsense of a couple of years back.

justin heywood 3:08 pm 11 Jun 15

Holden Caulfield said :

….It’s a publicity stunt, nothing more.

Correct.

Cynical media finds a nutbag, gives him oxygen.

The righteous go into meltdown.

Tymefor 2:48 pm 11 Jun 15

Wil Anderson ?@Wil_Anderson · 6h6 hours ago
If marriage equality means gay people can get married and bigoted people get divorced, I consider that a win-win for marriage…

win

Holden Caulfield 2:40 pm 11 Jun 15

I assume they already know they won’t meet the requirements for a divorce, which aside from nothing else, would surely go against their Christian beliefs.

And then there’s the fact that state-sanctioned marriages have been possible for years (ie. without any association to any religion), which appears to be his biggest beef with gay marriage.

It’s a publicity stunt, nothing more.

1 2 3 5

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site