| |
Australian
Marriage Law
There
has been
introduced into
our country a strange and divisive debate over
marriage. Some
have branded as
anachronistic, at best, the determination of the Federal
Parliament
of Australia
to uphold the Marriage Act amendment (2004). The problem
with this legislation, according to the activists, is its
use of the common law definition of marriage: “A union
between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others,
voluntarily entered into for life”. Those in favour of
changing our legal definition of marriage commonly defend
their cause by reminding conservatives that we have now
entered the 21st century, and that Australian law does not
reflect contemporary Western "values" regarding equality.
Such words mask the danger inherent in any change: the
imposition of foreign and perverted concepts of "marriage"
on mainstream Australia. If ever achieved
in future, the symbolic
change desired would assist in further corrupting
our society,
one which is already increasingly ignorant of the
values of our founding fathers.
But the appeal to
contemporary values suggests an absurd premise
– that ever-changing popular opinion (or what is
falsely claimed as such) should dictate what is right and
what is wrong! Is it really logical to argue that the
increasing popularity of criminal behaviour, outlawed
since ancient times as harmful and perverted, dictates
that the laws of the land should follow suit? The argument
relies on the assumption of another absurdity: that man is
constantly improving by evolution, and that therefore
current values are always superior to those held by our
forefathers.
Yet even if such an idea were correct, it is a fallacy to
assume that serious deviation from the biblical rules of
marriage is a purely modern phenomenon. The 1997 repeal of
the last laws banning sodomite practice in Australia,
under pressure from
the United Nations
“Human Rights Committee”,[1]
merely symbolises a return to the lawless ways of the
ancient heathen world (see Genesis 19:4-11; Romans
1:26-27).
They
know not, nor will understand;
in darkness they walk on:
All the foundations of the
earth
out of their course are gone. (Psalm 82:5)
The "contemporary
values" philosophy has always been disastrous. Equally
devastating to civilisation is the notion that government
or church leaders can dictate mora ls.
In reality, the basic principles of the natural world do
not change, and neither do those that concern human
society. It is easy to be misled into the opposite opinion
by the constant technological advances of our age. But
such great advances have come about by means of generation
upon generation studying the unchanging principles of the
creation. Scientific principles are seen in nature, and
they do not conflict with moral principles, the vestiges
of which are found in the heart of man (Romans 2:14-15).
The complete and uncorrupted law of God is found in the
Holy Bible.
In an attempt to emancipate themselves from biblical
morality, some people cite judicial and ceremonial laws
that are clearly no longer required (such as Deuteronomy
25:4). Their argument is overthrown when it is understood
that these laws and sacrifices were a shadow of things to
come, of the taking away of sins, and making
"reconciliation for iniquity" (Daniel 9:24), by the
sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ: "Messiah [shall] be
cut off, but not for himself . . . And he shall confirm
the covenant with many . . . he shall cause the sacrifice
and the oblation to cease" (Daniel
9:26-27,
cf. Hebrews 10:1; I Corinthians 9:8-10). But the moral law
remains (James 2:8-12), summarised in Ten Commandments
that concern love to God and our neighbour (Exodus 20, cf.
Matthew
22:37-40).
The Bible is clear that marriage is a lifelong union
between a man and a woman: "Therefore shall a man leave
his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife:
and they shall be one flesh" (Genesis
2:24;
Matthew 19:5,6); "Nevertheless, to avoid
fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let
every woman have her own husband" (I Corinthians 7:2);
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto
the Lord . . . Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ
also loved the church, and gave himself for it" (Ephesians
5:22, 25). And the seventh commandment, "Thou shalt not
commit adultery" (Exodus
20:14),
shows us that any attempt to create analogous
relationships outside the bounds of this definition is
forbidden. "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed
undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge"
(Hebrews 13:4).
So in the timeless laws of God we see that not only is
homosexuality forbidden (Romans
1:24-27),
but also all other perversions of marriage. So then, if we
are to accept sodomite behaviour, by whose law or by what
rationale do we reject other abominations or abuses? It is
difficult to believe that the vulnerable, including
children, will be protected from any abuse arising from a loosening of
morals in this area, especially since some of those
agitating for change also promote the killing of unborn
babies. The truth is that if we do not care for the moral
law we have no genuine love for either God or our
neighbour. God has given us a fixed set of principles for
all time, and we should take note of them.
O God, do thou raise up
thyself,
the earth to judgment call:
For thou, as thine inheritance,
shalt take the nations all. (Psalm 82:8)
But maybe you
cannot agree that your behaviour harms others. "Why then",
perhaps you wonder, "should I take note of laws that I
hate and of a God who is a stranger to me?" The inspired
apostle has the answer:
"For the wages of sin
is
death; but the gift of God
is
eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 6:23).
It is by faith alone that we receive such a gift:
"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with
God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:1).
“Know
ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the
kingdom
of God?
Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, no r adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of
themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor
drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit
the
kingdom
of God.
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are
sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord
Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (I Corinthians
6:9-11).
S J Tanner,
AD 2012
[1]Conversely,
the government of
Papua New Guinea
(Australia’s
nearest
neighbour and fellow
Commonwealth Realm)
have thus far defied such
international
pressure.
|
|
|
