Personally don't have a problem with it though. I would like to make the case for traditional marriage as being between one man and one woman; but to do so with some important qualifications. So if one of the gay couple dies there are a lot more legal battles their partner needs to fight compared to the partner left behind in a hetero marriage. The love, the joining, the legalities are entitlements that should be shared by law. It has been happening for years. Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. It is crucial to notice that the proposed revision of marriage laws involves exactly that:
And yes, they have never had a reasoned justification.
I oppose same-sex marriage (and no, I'm not a bigot)
That's still the case now. Commandeered the term gay? Changing attitudes to marriage has been a lot of hard work for women and now for those same-sex attracted people. Read has seen friends leave the faith over the same-sex marriage policy, but she accepts it as revelation. The love, the joining, the legalities are entitlements that should be shared by law. Marriage is, and has always been, a social institution.
You are welcome to it. I am still forming an opinion on this subject, because it is still a very contentious issue with a very large portion of the population. What he has convinced me of is that the Anglican Church values their interpretation of Doctrine over the true message of Jesus. As with gay marriage, it should be up to the public whether or not we do - as happened in Ireland recently. Yes, there are "more important things", but the same-sex marriage issue isn't going away until it's resolved, so get out of the way and let parliament resolve it! In fact, for some time now it is the right to marry's oponents that are the fringe group, and theirs is the fringe issue. But the response was very different from places like Canada.