Restrictions since homosexual marriage legalised

[OzSpen]

For those countries or states that have legalised same-sex marriage, what restrictions are now being implemented against those who oppose homosexual marriage?

What is being done against preachers who uphold biblical morality, including rejection of homosexuality?

Is there a new under-class where Christians are now experiencing discrimination against them for their biblical ethics?

Australia is going to the people with either a plebiscite or referendum after 2016 to decide on same-sex marriage. I'm interested in what kinds of reverse discrimination are already taking place against Christians and others who oppose homosexual morality.

Oz

 

[Josho]

For those countries or states that have legalised same-sex marriage, what restrictions are now being implemented against those who oppose homosexual marriage?

What is being done against preachers who uphold biblical morality, including rejection of homosexuality?

Is there a new under-class where Christians are now experiencing discrimination against them for their biblical ethics?

Australia is going to the people with either a plebiscite or referendum after 2016 to decide on same-sex marriage. I'm interested in what kinds of reverse discrimination are already taking place against Christians and others who oppose homosexual morality.

Oz

If Tony Abbott was to get re-elected i don't think this will go ahead. He was against a referendum was he?

 

[OzSpen]

If Tony Abbott was to get re-elected i don't think this will go ahead. He was against a referendum was he?

Our Prime Minister is a promoter of heterosexual marriage. However, he's under pressure from some in his own party to get the people to decide in either a plebiscite or referendum.

That's not the issue I'm raising. In countries that have endorses homosexual marriage, e.g. Canada, NZ, USA, Ireland, etc, what are the consequences for people who support traditional marriage and oppose homosexual marriage? Will debate on the topic be closed down?

I've just written to a couple Qld Senators, encouraging them to vote for traditional marriage.

Here is part of what I wrote:

The result in Ireland is an example of what happens when a plebiscite-like non-compulsory vote is taken. The result in Ireland was 62.1% in favour of homosexual marriage, BUT what wasn't given prominent publicity was that this was NOT a compulsory vote and turnout for voting was between 50 and 70% (approx 60%).

This means that approx. 38% of adults favoured homosexual marriage, but it was called a 62% majority. This is wrong when a minority of adults voted.

I urge you to back a compulsory referendum if the Coalition wants to make it a popular vote.

However, my view is that marriage should never be determined by popular vote or government legislation. God decided who should be joined together in the beginning of time: 'A man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife and they shall become one flesh' (Genesis 2:24). Jesus Christ confirmed this position of heterosexual marriage (Matthew 19:5) and it was affirmed by the apostle Paul (Ephesians 5:31).

Australia was built on Christian foundations and heterosexual marriage is God's plan. It should not be changed by government or the people.

Oz

 

[Josho]

I guess i spoke too soon, now look what happens, Malcolm Turnbull challenges Tony Abbott, becomes Prime Minister, and he is all for marriage equality. The thing i like about Tony Abbott is he stood strong in what he believed in and what God created, a marriage between man and woman, Adam and Eve. Hopefully at the very least Malcolm Turnbull makes a compulsory referendum, that way everyone has a say, or even better if God opens his eyes, so that he may see the truth, prayer is needed for our new Prime Minister.

 

[OzSpen]

I guess i spoke too soon, now look what happens, Malcolm Turnbull challenges Tony Abbott, becomes Prime Minister, and he is all for marriage equality. The thing i like about Tony Abbott is he stood strong in what he believed in and what God created, a marriage between man and woman, Adam and Eve. Hopefully at the very least Malcolm Turnbull makes a compulsory referendum, that way everyone has a say, or even better if God opens his eyes, so that he may see the truth, prayer is needed for our new Prime Minister.

Josho,

You and I as Aussies know that Turnbull, the new Prime Minister, is in favour of homosexual marriage, but that's not the policy of the current Coalition government. After the next election in 2016 (when it is supposed to happen), a plebicite or referendum on homosexual marriage is supposed to be held.

However, that's not the point I'm raising in this thread. I'm asking: In countries or states where homosexual marriage has been legalised, what is the effect of that legislation on the society, especially on Christians? For example, will I as a preacher-teacher of Scripture be prevented from preaching what Scripture says about homosexual relationships? Will cake makers, cake decorators, and florists be able, according to their Christian conscience, to refuse to engage in these commercial activities for a homosexual marriage? What will happen to the proclamation of God's law for marriage in both Old and New Testaments:

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh (Gen 2:24 ESV; Matt 19:5 ESV; Eph 5:31 ESV)

Will I be censored from preaching from those verses about God's order of heterosexuality in marital union when homosexual marriage is legalised?

I'm a long-term counsellor, working mostly in secular settings in Australia. Would I be prevented from refusing to engage in the counselling of homosexuals who want a better 'marriage' relationship because of my objection to homosexual 'marriage' - for my conscience sake?

There are other implications that could flow from legalising homosexual marriage. How will these impact on those who want to live as Christians in our society?

Christian blessings,
Oz

 

[Josho]

Well it's already having effects in US, and i'm sure there are many other examples of it, this is just one of them http://news.yahoo.com/court-again-denies-kim-davis-bid-delay-marriage-000933307.html

I have also heard some other stuff about pastors who refuse to marry gay couples could get jailed, i haven't heard anything about that taking place yet though. But i think the answer is pretty clear, a lost of freedom. While i know about a few things happening in the US, i got no idea what's happening in Ireland, New Zealand or other countries that have legalized it, i think the media has kept very quiet about it.

 

[OzSpen]

Well it's already having effects in US, and i'm sure there are many other examples of it, this is just one of them http://news.yahoo.com/court-again-denies-kim-davis-bid-delay-marriage-000933307.html

I have also heard some other stuff about pastors who refuse to marry gay couples could get jailed, i haven't heard anything about that taking place yet though. But i think the answer is pretty clear, a lost of freedom. While i know about a few things happening in the US, i got no idea what's happening in Ireland, New Zealand or other countries that have legalized it, i think the media has kept very quiet about it.

Here is one article that I discovered in Christianity Today that discussed this issue on the impact of same-sex marriage legalisation in the USA, '"Outrage and Panic" Are Off-Limits, Say Evangelical Leaders on Same-Sex Marriage' (June 26, 2015). There are a couple negative consequences mentioned in this article, 'New Zealand becomes 13th country to legalize gay "marriage"' (April 17, 2013).

 

[River Jordan]

Well it's already having effects in US, and i'm sure there are many other examples of it, this is just one of them http://news.yahoo.com/court-again-denies-kim-davis-bid-delay-marriage-000933307.html

The only effect there is to one government employee who refused to do the job she was elected to do.

I have also heard some other stuff about pastors who refuse to marry gay couples could get jailed, i haven't heard anything about that taking place yet though.

That ain't gonna happen in the US. Anyone who says otherwise is just engaging in hyperbole for dramatic effect.

But i think the answer is pretty clear, a lost of freedom.

Freedom to do what?

 

[Josho]

A lost of freedom of speech, a lost to practice Christianity freely, Kim Davis refused to do the job, because it went against her beliefs, that's the freedom people lose. It's no different to getting the sack for refusing to let a homosexual student into a Christian school.

 

[River Jordan]

A lost of freedom of speech, a lost to practice Christianity freely,

Where? How?

Kim Davis refused to do the job, because it went against her beliefs, that's the freedom people lose.

Um....I've got news for ya'....freedom of religion is not a free pass to do whatever you want, especially if it means breaking the law. Just as a Muslim can't work at the DMV and refuse to issue drivers licenses to women.

It's no different to getting the sack for refusing to let a homosexual student into a Christian school.

No, that's quite a bit different. Christian schools are private schools, not government agencies.

 

[Barrd]

My own Alabama has come up with a new plan.
Just don't bother with marriage licenses...
Instead, let the couple draw up their own agreement, and record it at the courthouse, like you would any other contract...

That way, everyone who wants a legal marriage can have one, and nobody has to violate their conscience.

Of course, the bill hasn't passed yet...but I am so hoping that it will!

 

[Barrd]

Where? How?


Um....I've got news for ya'....freedom of religion is not a free pass to do whatever you want, especially if it means breaking the law. Just as a Muslim can't work at the DMV and refuse to issue drivers licenses to women.


No, that's quite a bit different. Christian schools are private schools, not government agencies.

Are there many Muslims working in the DMV?
I doubt it.

I do recall reading about a controversy some Muslim cabbies in NYC had over fares who wanted to carry alcoholic beverages in their cabs. This was some years ago, but if I remember correctly, the decision was in favor of the cabbies.

Now, why should a Muslim cabbie get to refuse service to a guy taking home a couple of bottles of booze for his personal bar, but Christian bakers have to bake cakes for gay weddings?

Of course, Christians aren't as likely to behead anyone....that could be it.

 

[River Jordan]

Are there many Muslims working in the DMV?
I doubt it.

Yes, there are.

I do recall reading about a controversy some Muslim cabbies in NYC had over fares who wanted to carry alcoholic beverages in their cabs. This was some years ago, but if I remember correctly, the decision was in favor of the cabbies.

Nope, they lost.

 

[Barrd]

Yes, there are.

Nope, they lost.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/us/01taxi.html?_r=0

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2827800&page=1

I dunno...in Mobile, I hear they still give some folks problems...but I can really only talk about Alabama...

 

[River Jordan]

Don't know if you noticed, but the link I posted is from 2008, and your links are all before that. So AFAICT, the Muslim cabbies lost in court and that was it.

 

[Barrd]

Don't know if you noticed, but the link I posted is from 2008, and your links are all before that. So AFAICT, the Muslim cabbies lost in court and that was it.

Oops....

Ahh, well....so much for our first amendment...

 

[OzSpen]

A lost of freedom of speech, a lost to practice Christianity freely, Kim Davis refused to do the job, because it went against her beliefs, that's the freedom people lose. It's no different to getting the sack for refusing to let a homosexual student into a Christian school.

Josho,

I expect that as a preacher and Bible teacher I'll have my liberty in Australia curtailed when homosexual marriage becomes legal. These 'marriage equality' people seem to be the ones promoting tolerance towards the LGBT community. You watch it when homosexual marriage becomes legal. Who will be the ones to whom they will be intolerant? I expect those of us who are evangelicals and believe the Scripture will be persecuted by the pro-gay community. Imagine it: Intolerant of tolerance!

I can see it coming to the point where Christians will get a formal marriage license at the court house and the marriage ceremony will be a separate blessing in the church. I expect to spend time in jail because I preach what the Bible says about any sinful actions, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual (see 1 Cor 6:9-11). Can you imagine what will happen if a journalist of a newspaper, radio or TV station is sitting in the congregation when I preach on a passage like this, what will happen to me?

I expect freedom of religion activities could be curtailed.

In Christ,
Oz

 

[OzSpen]

My own Alabama has come up with a new plan.
Just don't bother with marriage licenses...
Instead, let the couple draw up their own agreement, and record it at the courthouse, like you would any other contract...

That way, everyone who wants a legal marriage can have one, and nobody has to violate their conscience.

Of course, the bill hasn't passed yet...but I am so hoping that it will!

So does that mean it will be OK for one man to draw up his own agreement with, say, 3 women and the courthouse is obliged to register that contract? After all, that will not violate his polygamous conscience. Same with one woman and 3 men???

Do you think the proposed Bill will allow the Utah polygamous bloke to come to Alabama to have his 'marriage' agreement authorised?

Oz

 

[River Jordan]

Oops....

No worries. ;)

Ahh, well....so much for our first amendment...

Well, freedom of religion doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want, no matter what. Like all our freedoms, there are limits.

 

[shnarkle]

Our Prime Minister is a promoter of heterosexual marriage. However, he's under pressure from some in his own party to get the people to decide in either a plebiscite or referendum.

That's not the issue I'm raising. In countries that have endorses homosexual marriage, e.g. Canada, NZ, USA, Ireland, etc, what are the consequences for people who support traditional marriage and oppose homosexual marriage? Will debate on the topic be closed down?

I've just written to a couple Qld Senators, encouraging them to vote for traditional marriage.

Here is part of what I wrote:

The result in Ireland is an example of what happens when a plebiscite-like non-compulsory vote is taken. The result in Ireland was 62.1% in favour of homosexual marriage, BUT what wasn't given prominent publicity was that this was NOT a compulsory vote and turnout for voting was between 50 and 70% (approx 60%).

This means that approx. 38% of adults favoured homosexual marriage, but it was called a 62% majority. This is wrong when a minority of adults voted.

I urge you to back a compulsory referendum if the Coalition wants to make it a popular vote.

However, my view is that marriage should never be determined by popular vote or government legislation. God decided who should be joined together in the beginning of time: 'A man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife and they shall become one flesh' (Genesis 2:24). Jesus Christ confirmed this position of heterosexual marriage (Matthew 19:5) and it was affirmed by the apostle Paul (Ephesians 5:31).

Australia was built on Christian foundations and heterosexual marriage is God's plan. It should not be changed by government or the people.

Oz

There's a very easy solution to this problem. I don't even see it as a problem really. Historically, the Church and the State both had a vested interest in sanctioning marriages. Just because the State has released its interest is no reason for the Church to be compelled to do the same. What's critical to understand here is just what was it that the Church and State were sanctioning in the first place. This is also where the potential problem arises. The Church and State were originally sanctioning pregnancies. The word "marry" or "marriage" comes from a Latin word which means "to impregnate".

The Church has gotten away from this idea through its slide into the culture it is in; the Church is now "Of" the world and therefore has no argument. Those Churches that are able to extricate themselves from this narrative set by the secular world should have no problem presenting themselves within the historical Christian context.

Instead of parroting "marriage is between one woman and one man" with no explicit reference to what exactly this is supposed to mean, they can reveal the fact that they are sanctioning pregnancies and therefore there is no point to sanctioning what is impossible to begin with.

What about a couple that is beyond child bearing years, or a couple where one member is infertile or sterile? The church is not in a position to pry into the affairs of those situations, and it should also be noted that the church is operating within a context where miracles do happen if it be according to God's will.

Furthermore, we have an amendment that clearly states that no laws may be made that restrict the free exercise of one's religion. Oh, scratch that one. We used to have a Constitution; my bad. Maybe Trump will do something about that; one can only hope.