Tasmanian Uniting Church minister, Rev David Hunnerup, argues for marriage equality:
I wish to present a dissenting voice. I am a Christian and ordained person and want to at least make sure that the minority of Christians who think similarly to me are not voiceless. The denial of access to the institution of marriage for gays is both offensive and discriminatory. It will always mean that the gay person is defined as being essentially “other” than a full person (read- heterosexual), and “otherness” is viewed as dangerous and cancerous to social cohesion.
*
The debate draws forward: Should the institution of marriage be available for couples of the same sex? Federal parliament will soon make a decision that probably will not be re-visited with political openness perhaps for another generation or two.
“What is the big deal?” some people say – gay couples have lawful rights which apply to defacto relationships. Why spend precious time on this issue when there are really big issues like global warming and economic recovery?
Because it matters. It is a question of what makes for a perfectly normal and ordinary human being imbibed with civil rights. This matters more than ever in a volatile period of aggressive religious world-wide intolerances. “Gay-ness” discussions always distill , no matter the content and quality of debate, towards a view wherein gays are defined (overtly and covertly) as abnormal . The denial of access to the institution of marriage for gays is both offensive and discriminatory. It will always mean that the gay person is defined as being essentially “other” than a full person (read- heterosexual), and “otherness” is viewed as dangerous and cancerous to social cohesion.
I am very aware that Christian communities (denominations) in Tasmania are rallying to take a firm stand; “nay to the gay sayers”; a resounding no to marriage for gay and lesbian couples. Federal members have been lobbied by local Churches. Archbishop Pell, presumably among other senior clergy, has been hard at work endeavoring to keep the Catholic position in the heart and mind of politicians in Northern Tasmania.
I wish to present a dissenting voice. I am a Christian and ordained person and want to at least make sure that the minority of Christians who think similarly to me are not voiceless. The Christian Churches in Tasmania are largely conservative in nature , their theological roots are- in the main – fundamentalist and traditional rather than liberal. To a conservative Christian, the thought of a gay person being gay is difficult in itself, much less the thought of gay marriage. I have great respect for my own Church traditions, which reflect diversity of views; both for and against. I also know that those people who will be the last to accept scientific and philosophical change will be those who have deep attachments to their literary anchor, the Bible.
The primary source of information that guides all Christians is this Bible. It is true that some authors of sections of the Bible are quite negative about homosexuality, declaring it to be sin. One of those authors prefers heterosexual rape to homosexuality. Another commands death to those engaged in homosexual behavior, Another seems to have not the slightest interest in the difference between homosexual orientation and lifestyle. Many lump homosexuality in with greediness, theft and general repugnancy. It is true that these are written in very different times and circumstances, and reflect views that we would not accept today. If a first reading of the Bible is not all what it seems, then that is also true for the view about homosexuality. The authors cannot have had the vaguest ideas of the issues about homosexual orientation. And yet conservative Christians will almost automatically say “The Bible says….”.
Christians are taught that God loves the sinner (homosexual) but not the sin (homosexual behavior). The problem here is evident. To just “be” a homosexual makes a person a sinner. At least the heterosexuals have to have done something wrong to be regarded a sinner. As for behavior, the homosexual will be considered by the Church as OK with God as long as he/she doesn’t do the act. So… there is something about actually touching skin to skin in erotic or sexual conduct which is supposed to be disgusting. What is the science of this view? Does this not reek of homophobia?
John Shelby Spong, the retired American Episcopal bishop, speaks about his journey to confront the three great prejudices perpetrated by the Christian faith in the not so far past; that black people are inferior to white people, that women cannot exercise leadership over men, and that homosexuals are abnormal. The first two have been held up to scientific and moral scrutiny, found severely wanting, and largely discarded. The third has yet to follow.
I see no convincing evidence that gay relationships essentially lack any of the key ingredients that make for good partnerships and good parenting. I see no evidence that people who are not gay are going to become gay because those around them might be gay. Children will still be born, and we have many ways to make that happen thanks to compassionate scientific research. Children will still be nurtured to respect people and society, be it in a homosexual household or heterosexual household.
Arguments put forward along the line of – “ if we allow gay marriage then where does it stop? Will polygamy be next? – are not acceptable. The homosexual debate is whether gays can have access to the institution of marriage because they are actually normal, fully human, and with no more or less moral and social deficits than you and me and anyone else. Polygamy or any other issue (e.g. adoption, surrogacy) will have different dimensions to be brought to the debate. The “what is it to be a normal human” issue is the fundamental one here.
If I were an elected member, I would be voting in favor of gay marriage, and no doubt incurring the wrath of many in my electorate. I am also making this clear that I am speaking as an informed Christian. The views in my own Christian community (or denomination) vary. I do not represent the whole, nor have authority to attempt to do so.
Senators and members – please vote yes to change in the Marriage Act , to accommodate the aspirations of both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Same sex marriage.
Rev. David Hunnerup is a mental health accredited social worker; family therapist and relationship counselor. A partner/practitioner with The Blue Door Counselling Practice in Launceston. An ordained minister (not in settlement) with the U.C.A.
For the original article, click here