I'm only half-kidding. Australian woman Jodi Rose did in fact marry Le Pont du Diable bridge (also known as the Devil's Bridge) on June 17. But it cannot be confirmed that the bridge, raised by Benedictines, remained Catholic throughout its lifespan. This peculiar union was not blessed by a Catholic priest. It was blessed instead by the mayor of the neighbouring town. For those who are wondering, here are five reasons why the Catholic Church would never have allowed marriage between this woman and this bridge.
1. The bridge never consented.
Ms. Rose took advantage of the bridge's inanimate nature and married it even though the bridge could not possibly express its consent to the marriage.
This weekend my daughter was catching up on her college homework. Chapter Ten in her psychology textbook is titled “Sex and Gender.” It covers topics such as gender differences, similarities, and stereotypes. The chapter wends its way from transgender issues to sexual harassment to the glass ceiling in the workplace, the boundary beyond which women are not welcome. The book defines sexism as “differential treatment of an individual on the basis of his or her sex.”
Nowadays more than half of all women in the United States work outside the home. Although they are garnering high-profile positions in private industry, government and politics, there is one domain in which they are increasingly discriminated against and excluded: families.
Today in Canberra nine people – eight Labor and one from the Greens – will set themselves up to decide marriage policy affecting the entire nation.
Capitalising on the normal disruption of a change of federal government, the ACT government will introduce a bill for same-sex marriage into the territory’s 17-member assembly. With no residency requirement, the Labor-Greens government is mischievously creating a problem for interstate people who will not be married when they cross back over the border.
The Liberals, sensibly, are not buying into it and will oppose the bill on constitutional grounds.
The commonwealth parliament has the power to override territory legislation and, because marriage is a federal responsibility, it should do this. It is not in Australia’s interest to have a hodgepodge of marriage laws. It is concerning that same-sex marriage advocates say they…
click here to read whole article and make comments
If you can bear the clinking of plates, this address by Sherif Girgis is well-worth listening to. He is a Princeton graduate, Rhodes Scholar and graduate student at Princeton and Yale in law and philosophy. As a colleague of Princeton Professor Robert P. George he wrote a widely-read paper defending traditional marriage and attacking the notion of same-sex marriage. His words are cool, charitable and lucid.
Thank you, Brian Greig, for summing up the ultimate outcome of the same-sex marriage campaign in four crisp sentences: the abolition of marriage altogether.
Mr Greig is a former Senator from Western Australia who was the first open homosexual in Federal Parliament. In 1999 he told the Senate that no gays and lesbians he knew wanted same-sex marriage. (See yesterday's Conjugality.) Now, in a letter to The Australian, he explains why he has changed his mind.
The purpose of the campaign, he says, is to attain “respect and recognition”.
“I see now that exclusion from such a fundamental social and legal institution as marriage runs to the heart of the prejudice and stigma gay and lesbian people still face.
The Australian newspaper today declared its pragmatic opposition to same-sex marriage. With Opposition Leader Tony Abbott (who wrote its editorials once upon a time), it regards the current campaign as a fad. “Marriage is not a right,” the paper contends. “It is among other things a contractual set of obligations attached to the raising of a family”.
Furthermore, it is a policy demanded by a very small minority which is fiercely opposed by other minorities. “We must be cautious too of elevating the sensitivities of one minority group above those of others. Same-sex marriage is not easily embraced by Islamic and other non-Western cultures where loyalty to family and tradition trump Western notions of liberties and rights.”
Today is the first day of legal same-sex marriage in New Zealand. Bob McCoskrie, the director of Family First New Zealand, who campaigned long and hard against it, sent along this internet meme to mark the occasion.
"Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage licence."
"Tim and Jim Jones."
"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."
"Yes, we're brothers."
"Brothers? You can't get married."
"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licences to same gender couples?"
"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest! Why do you want to get married?"
"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."
SPOILER ALERT: This will probably be of interest only to Australian readers.
One of the gay men who appeared on Tuesday’s SBS Insight program (see Conjugality, August 14) immediately complained about the unkind, wounding, ignorant, hostile, dehumanising, and discriminatory attitude of some participants. Writing in Eureka Street, an Australian Catholic magazine, Ben (no surname given) said that “For the first time, I felt the full force of internalised homophobia and public heterosexism”.
I’m not sure what these words mean, other than “someone disagreed with me”.
If gay activists dissolve into puddles of self-pity when confronted with opposing views, it becomes impossible to have a rational discussion based on logic and evidence.
Yesterday evening’s discussion of same-sex marriage on SBS Insight was both great fun and a frightening omen. Insight is a bit like cage fighting for intellectuals. Representatives of opposing views say their piece and are booed or clapped by a carefully vetted audience. (This included me!)
In this episode, a Chinese Malaysian and Vietnamese Australian gay couple, a lesbian who is Federal Minister for Finance, and a Catholic priest were at the centre of the bull pit. As the invitation of the host, Jenny Brockie, others jumped up to comment. (See transcript and a YouTube video of the whole show. )
Penny Wong, the politician, dominated the evening. She is a dour woman, although from time to time a smile lit up her face. She brought to the studio the authority of being a minister of the Crown and Australia’s…
click here to read whole article and make comments
About a hundred years ago, G.K. Chesterton wrote an essay “On Evil Euphemisms”, which opened with these words “Somebody has sent me a book on Companionate Marriage; so-called because the people involved were not married and will rapidly cease to be companions”.
And later, “When someone wishes to wage a social war against what all normal people would have regarded as a social decency, the first thing he does is to find some artificial term that shall sound relatively decent. He has no more real courage than the ordinary advertiser has the courage to advertise ale as arsenic”.
It would seem that not much has changed in the past century regarding the inability to see a disaster looming before one's eyes.