Opinion: The logic fail of Christian objections to marriage equality

OPINION
GOVERNMENT legislation on the secular definition of marriage has nothing to do with religion. Despite this, Christian organisations continue to attempt to take an ownership of the debate.
Last week, the Anglican Church released a booklet entitled What God Has Joined Together. Eighteen pages on why God is supposedly against homosexuality and marriage equality, and a somewhat confusing argument against bigotry and discrimination while at the same time firmly stating that federal marriage laws should continue to discriminate against LGTBIQ couples.
The booklet likens the push for the removal of discrimination in marriage legislation to communism, and states that the introduction of the no-fault divorce laws in 1975 resulted in “widespread infidelity and divorce”.

The good fathers of the Anglican Church might want to consult their bible if they really believe infidelity and divorce only started in 1975. Paul, in his Letter to the Romans, written nearly two thousand years before 1975, was deeply vexed by the sexual shenanigans of the (loosely) married church leaders at the time.
And if we take The Anglican Church at their word, that they believe federal marriage legislation should follow the Christian rules — “what God has joined together, let no one tear asunder” — should we follow their reasoning and repeal not just the no-fault divorce legislation, but all access to divorce? This certainly appears to be part of the argument in the booklet they just published.
Even if you accept the Christian bible as an influential document, opposition to marriage equality stands on very shaky ground. Strict adherence to the few passages relating to homosexuality looks hypocritical when so many other passages are clearly recognised as mistaken assumptions, based on an ancient understanding of the world and social tenets of a bygone age.
No Christians are advocating for the right for men to sell their daughters into slavery, as endorsed by Exodus 21:7 — “If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do”.
Nor is anyone suggesting that people who work on the Sabbath should be executed, as clearly stated in Exodus 35:2 — “For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a day of Sabbath rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it is to be put to death”.
And there’s certainly not a lot of support from our allegedly Christian leaders for Leviticus 19:34 “The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt”.
The Australian “Christian” Lobby, which (much to the dismay of many Christians) claims to “bring a Christian voice for values to the public policy discourse”, issued less than 20 statements about asylum seekers in 2015-2016, but they made over 180 about LGTBIQ issues.
Why is this issue so much more important to them than anything else?
Jesus himself was silent on the issue of homosexuality, although he did have quite a bit to say about loving our brothers and not sitting in judgment of others. Some advice that wouldn’t go astray in the ACL’s conduct in this debate.
True Christians, who follow the very fundamentals of Christianity — believing that Jesus was the son of God and brought the word of God to the people of the world — might want to consider what Jesus himself would think of their current activities. He was an anarchist and a disrupter, who spoke out passionately against bigotry, injustice and the corrupt practices of organised religion.
Still, although biblical passages that simply don’t apply to the modern era could fill a book, there’s little point outlining them all because this debate isn’t about the bible’s instructions to Christians.
Marriage equality is about the Federal Government enacting legislation that discriminates against one specific section of our society. God has no place in this debate.
Australia is a secular nation. Section 116 of the Constitution, titled “Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion”, prohibits federal law “imposing any religious observance”. The spirit of this section means that as much as we would never allow the Federal Government to enact legislation imposing the Muslim, Jewish or Mormon definition of marriage upon the entire country, we should equally object to the Christian definition being part of federal legislation.
As Father Rod Bower of the Gosford Anglican Church told news.com.au, “There is already a variety of definitions of marriage in a secular democracy, and there should be no problem with adding to that. Having one more definition of marriage doesn’t need to alter the dynamic that already exists”.
The people advocating for marriage equality in Australia are not attempting to impose their beliefs on to any church, they are simply objecting to churches imposing their definition of marriage onto the rest of us.
As Trevor Elwell, proud dad in a two dad family says, “I don’t want any church or any religion to recognise my marriage. The concept of marriage is not owned by the church it is an embedded social institution that extends to Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, and atheists, so no, I don’t want their recognition and more than that, this gay, atheist, feminist dad thinks they have no say in recognising my inevitable marriage”.
And that is the heart of the question Australia needs to answer: should our government enact discriminatory legislation on secular marriage only because some religions want it that way?
Jane Gilmore is a freelance writer from Melbourne. Follow her on Twitter @JaneTribune