Malcolm Turnbull rips into hypocrites

Hmmmmm, perhaps I should hang back on posting when I'm as plastered as I was last night..... 

I'm no fan of the Liberal (conservative) party here, but it was good to read something from one of their shadow cabinet ministers in the national debate going on here about gay marriage. Malcolm Turnbull has made a rather bold step in disagreeing with the official party line and coming out in favour of gay marriage. He's much more of a moderate than that dumb nutter Abbott.

I dunno WTF is the deal with all these silly pollies in Canberra. Poll after poll shows Australians strongly support gay marriage, yet they can't seem to get it into their heads to act according to what people want. Instead they politicise it and it turns into some contest between the parties; who can get the most political mileage out of it. 

But anyway I was pretty impressed with the way Turnbull systematically ripped apart the arguments against. Some of it:

Turning to another argument against gay marriage, we have the proposition, widely put around, that it will undermine the traditional institution of marriage.

I am utterly unpersuaded by the proposition that my marriage to Lucy, or indeed any marriage, is undermined by two gay men or two lesbians setting up house down the road - whether it is called a marriage or not. Regrettably, this aspect of the debate is dripping with the worst sort of hypocrisy and the deepest pools are all too often found among the most sanctimonious.

Let us be honest with each other. The threat to marriage is not the gays. It is a lack of loving commitment - whether it is found in the form of neglect, indifference, cruelty or adultery, to name just a few manifestations of the loveless desert in which too many marriages come to grief.

In the past 20 years the percentage of marriages in Australia conducted by ministers of religion has dropped from 58 per cent in 1990 to 31 per cent in 2010. Most couples marry today without the benefit of clergy.

About 30 per cent of marriages in 2010 included at least one party who had been married before, which means that most of those marriages would likely be regarded as adulterous and invalid by several of our leading churches.

So there is a clear distinction already between what constitutes a valid marriage in the eyes of the state and in the eyes of the church.

In Australia ministers of religion are authorised to perform both the civil function, on behalf of the Commonwealth, and the religious one on behalf of their denomination.

My point here is that the question as to whether same-sex couples' unions should be termed a marriage by the state is not one which calls for a religious answer. No denomination can be compelled to recognise any particular form of marriage - it is entirely up to them.
Link

I came across this picture the other day, thought it was lovely. From the Big Picture: