BRUCE C WEARNE reflects on Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop’s recent comments on same-sex marriage…
The Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop, recently gave her strong public endorsement for “marriage equality”. The terms of her affirmation of same-sex marriage need to be examined carefully. They include an implicit challenge to anyone who might vote no in the anticipated plebiscite.
The challenge comes especially to those of us professing themselves as disciples of Jesus Christ, who say their vote is in-line with His teaching. For them, the affirmation of the exclusive male-female marital bond is what His teaching requires. The implicit appeal to love and compassion in Ms Bishop’s justification, raises a valid question about how a Christian political response is to likewise claim that it is driven by love and compassion for all, and all must also include same-sex attracted people.
|
PICTURE: Svilen Milev/www.freeimages.com “Ms Bishop’s statement should not be brushed aside. It is indeed a challenge to every Christian in this polity. How are we Christians to now live politically? How are we in our ongoing way of life to demonstrate love and compassion in our political perspective by an unequivocal commitment to marriage in the terms that Jesus taught?” |
Read her words carefully. Will not a plebiscite “yes” from our political community endorse parliamentary legislation that aims to show how much the Australian people care for each other, how much we want to treat each other with love and compassion?
From what she says on the record, it appears that those planning on voting no must be entrenched in the past. It is like a tug of war. She is now on the side of those with their feet in the present, opposed to a view cemented in the prejudices of the past. Her comments suggest that those who disagree, those who propose to vote no, are in danger of withholding love from same-sex attracted citizens. Ms Bishop’s explanation of her support for a plebiscite tells us of her belief that political support for “marriage equality” is simply about love and compassion for fellow citizens who are same-sex attracted people. Thus it seems that this is not so much at base a political issue but is a basic moral concern “that goes to the very composition of our community.”
It is by her appeal to “the way we feel about each other, how we treat each other” that she now challenges that part of our political community who propose to vote no. Opponents of “marriage equality” – if there be any of us left by the time the plebiscite comes around – must be challenged by this way of construing the plebiscite. Taking what she says seriously, it seems she is suggesting that it is now a matter of giving or withholding love and compassion.
For Ms Bishop, it is self-evident. “Love and compassion” drives her political “yes”. Up until quite recently the strictures upon Liberal Party parliamentarians meant no, and that included her no. This was because party unity depended upon preventing conscience votes and cabinet members from “crossing the floor” when the vote for “gay marriage” legislation came before the house. Such strictures are now a thing of an “unloving” past. The Liberal Party has moved on. Party unity now means something else; the old has been deposed and a new leader has been installed.
For Ms Bishop, the old strictures can now be seen for what they were: manifestations of a deep, dark lack of love and compassion. The Liberal Party of Australia is now, more and more, in step with the changes that have taken place in Canada, UK and New Zealand (and as the populist and celebrity led-tide turns in the US) in a global embrace of “love and compassion”. So now it is not just a matter of giving or withholding love or compassion; it is also a matter of the Australian electorate endorsing the Liberal Party’s transcending its “unloving past” and getting in step with the worldwide movement. “Marriage equality” presupposes a concerted global movement carrying with it entrenched Western liberal and neo-colonial implications.
Ever since the sentimentalist view of “spreading love around” was proffered by the British Prime Minister, those who oppose the change to the legal definition of marriage worldwide have been presented with a significant political challenge: how are they to demonstrate politically that their no is also motivated by love and compassion for all, including those same-sex attracted fellow-citizens who demand “marriage equality”. Presumably there will be many more in other polities worldwide who will clamour for this change as the neo-liberal movement rolls on and on.
So, we may be convinced that we should say “no!” But along with any warnings about the unintended consequences of such a change, how are we to show politically that it is our love and compassion for all citizens that impels us to take this stance?
To say no is to adopt a stand which a demonstration, politically, of an alternative love and compassion. This cannot be done merely by rejecting “marriage equality” legislation; it must involve the public affirmation of a way of life that, in the words of the apostle Paul is unashamedly saying “yes” to the good and perfect ways of the Lord (II Corinthians 1:20).
This is why Ms Bishop’s statement should not be brushed aside. It is indeed a challenge to every Christian in this polity. How are we Christians to now live politically? How are we in our ongoing way of life to demonstrate love and compassion in our political perspective by an unequivocal commitment to marriage in the terms that Jesus taught? Voting no in the plebiscite needs to coincide with a comprehensive political affirmation that puts forth a coherent case of seeking justice for all. And so it is going to have to explain what justice should mean for marriage, family and household – and that also means families and households where there are same-sex parents.
In the meantime, in the face of our dominant cultural patterns, Christians are going to have find a way of re-discovering the meaning of no in other ways to preserve and enhance a healthy integrity for the marriage institution. By saying yes to marriage, one is also talking about commitment to a way of life that has no qualms about quietly saying no to some conduct (whether by diaphragm, pharmaceuticals or condom) in order to affirm chaste pre-marital living and to endorse in deed the honourable and undefiled character of the marriage bed (Hebrews 13:4). When such Biblical teachings become part of any proposed political “no” then there may also emerge the prospect of a Christian political option, repentant from the heart, that is not compromised by its own furtive duplicity.
