Gay partnership ceremonies in other venues will also be allowed for the first time to contain a religious element, such as hymns or readings from the Bible. These unions will then be called ”˜marriage’.
For sure, this change doesn’t force religious institutions to introduce such ceremonies; whether they do so is up to them.
But the Government’s position is anything but neutral. For it implicitly endorses the idea that there is nothing wrong with overturning centuries of Biblical understanding of the sacrament of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
As such, the Government will be cutting the ground from under the feet of religious traditionalists. And what if churches refuse to conduct such a travesty of a marriage ceremony? Presumably, they would then risk being sued for ”˜discrimination’.
Truly, we are fast reaching the stage where upholding Biblical sexual standards will become the morality that dare not speak its name.
But if marriage is defined as a binding love relationship, then all who love must be permitted it, regardless of the members in the set. And this redefinition is precisely what is taking place. So let me ask you: Who has the power to define marriage, or is it simply a semantic variable? Schori has made it clear that this, like all other standards, is a semantic variable, true as language changes. Larry