same-sex marriage

Church of England to be Sued for Refusing to Perform Same-Sex Marriages, Just a Month After PM Promised Protection

August 5, 2013 by SPCS Leave a Comment

A gay couple in Great Britain has announced plans to pursue legal action against the Church of England for refusing to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, less than one month after the country officially legalized gay marriage, but explicitly excluded the Church from being forced to conduct the ceremonies as they go against biblical teachings.

Barrie Drewitt-Barlow and his partner, Tony, have been considered by many in Great Britain to be the “poster couple” for same-sex marriage legalization, as they became the first gay parents in 1999 through surrogacy, and have since had five other children through surrogacy. The couple had a civil partnership ceremony in 2006, and own a surrogate center in Chandlers Quay, Maldon.

The gay marriage legislation approved in Great Britain earlier this year, known as the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, included a “quadruple lock” meant to protect the Church of England and other religious institutions from being forced to perform same-sex marriages against their faith. Under the current law, churches may “opt-in” to perform same-sex marriages, but they cannot be forced to conduct ceremonies.

Despite that highly-publicized safeguard being included in the legislation, many critics believed that gay activists would ignore that exclusion and continue to push for churches to be forced to participate in gay marriage ceremonies against their will. Now just weeks after the legislation was passed, it appears those fears were well-founded; Drewitt-Barlow and his partner argue that they wish to “test” this protection in court. The couple have claimed that they are practicing Christians and they want their children to see them wed in a church ceremony.

‘Same sex Marriage bill’ – now law: what it means for churches – Craig Vernall

May 28, 2013 by SPCS 1 Comment

Senior Pastor, Craig Vernall, National Leader of the NZ Baptist Union, has notified all Baptist pastors registered as marriage celebrants (on the Baptist List) with the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages, that they are expressly forbidden to perform civil unions and same sex marriages under Baptist Administration Manual policy (put in place by the Baptist Assembly Council). Nor can they or any other Baptist celebrant perform such ceremonies in a private capacity, because they are only authorised to their (statutory function) role as marriage celebrants, based on the Call they have to the local Baptist congregation, and having accepted that Call, they are duty-bound to uphold the policies etc. of the NZ Baptist Union (of NZ churches). Vernall has written (NZ Baptist magazine. May 2013, p. 20):

With the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill passing into law in August this year it’s time for us to consider how our churches should respond to this new legislation.

During the months leading up to the Definition of Marriage Bill being passed, there have been a variety of opinions from both sides of the debate. A very small number of Baptist pastors have indicated to me that they would consider marrying a same sex couple, but admitted this didn’t necessarily reflect the opinions of their congregations.

I mention this because Baptist churches maintain a unique relationship with their pastors when it comes to the pastor’s right to conduct weddings. Baptists are firstly a movement of local churches. When a Baptist church calls a pastor, that pastor then has the ability to become a Registered Baptist pastor. Being registered then qualifies the pastor to become a celebrant on the Baptist list which is held by the Government appointed Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages.

So the ability for a Baptist Pastor to perform a wedding is linked directly to the Call given to him or her by their local Baptist church. This means the authority to perform a wedding belongs to the church, not the pastor. The pastor fulfils this function as a ministry of the church, but not by their own authority.

In recognition of this, the Assembly Council has made adjustments to the policy schedule in the Baptist Administration Manual because we believe this reflects the will of our Baptist churches and the Bible.

The Baptist Administration Manual includes policy covering Marriage and Civil Unions. This is found within ‘The Local Church” Appendix 2-M “Policy on Marriage and Civil Unions.”

This policy precludes Baptist pastors from conducting civil unions or the use of Baptist church buildings for such a ceremony. It was the Assembly Council’s decision, at their April 2013 meeting, to update this policy to include same sex marriage alongside civil unions as a ceremony we cannot condone. The Baptist Administration Manual will reflect this decision in due course.

A number of our pastors have asked questions about their protection under the law with respect to their wish not to perform same sex marriages. It is my understanding that church ministers are not legally required to perform a same sex marriage and that this decision will be protected in law as the legislation is finalised in the coming months.

Neither will Baptist churches have to surrender their buildings for same sex ceremonies. Our buildings are operated under our own authority. If your church congregation is worried about this it would be advisable to adopt the Baptist Administration Manual policies on Marriage and Sexuality and Marriage and Civil Unions (“The Local Church”, Appendix 2M and Appendix 2F Addendum 2) into your church’s constitution. Contact the Baptist Resource Centre for more information.

It will take some time for the dust to settle on this new law. For most of us it will be church business as usual. I’m anticipating that the first point of conflict won’t be with the churches, but with the independent marriage celebrants or court employed marriage registrars who don’t want to perform a same sex marriage for conscience reasons. They are very vulnerable under the present law and will need our support if they wish to defend their personal convictions. The Resource Centre has already been approached by a couple of civil celebrants seeking to be placed on our Baptist celebrants’ list. Unfortunately we cannot do this because the list is specifically reserved for Registered or Accredited Baptist ministers.

A second area of continued debate was highlighted by Green MP Kevin Hague who was quoted in the NZ Herald as saying he, “has drafted a private members bill which would overhaul adoption laws and remove all restrictions to adoption by same sex couples.” (NZ Herald 20th April). The New Zealand public may have something to say about this as the change will deny the rights of a child, in law, to have both a mother and a father.

During the course of the debate, a number of our pastors made the suggestions that Baptists could simply opt out of the marriage celebrant system. That is, hand back our marriage celebrant’s licences to the state. This would leave the state to conduct the legal part of a marriage ceremony and the church would then conduct the wedding as a purely Christian covenant.

This is common practice throughout much of Europe and Central America. It provides a very attractive civil strategy for those of us who are deeply disappointed in our democracy. The Assembly Council discussed this option, but felt that by doing this we Baptists would simply remove ourselves from any future debate around the subject.

On ANZAC Day I joined thousands of other New Zealanders to commemorate and remember the price paid for our democratic freedoms. As I reflect upon what our democracy has given us over the past 150 years I would prefer to ask forgiveness from the men and women who laid down their lives for our democracy.

Is our society a better place since we passed laws such as lowering the drinking age to 18, legalised casinos, decriminalised prostitution and now allowed for same sex marriage? It’s difficult not to sound like some moralising old wowser, but when I saw the results of a text poll carried out by TV’s Campbell Live revealing that 78% of New Zealanders were against same sex marriage, I feel I’m not alone. I don’t think this latest change in the nature and status of marriage was God’s will for our country, and I’m quietly confident that many of those ANZACS who are fallen and now silent would agree with me.

Source

Marriage bill: what it means for churches

NZ Baptist Vol, 129 No.4. 1 May 2013, p. 20.

Craig Vernall is senior pastor at Bethlehem Baptist Church Bethlehem, Tauranga, New Zealand.

Note:

The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill has been widely referred to in the media as the ‘Same sex marriage bill’.

Australian Marriage Equality, Rodney Croome and “gay” blood donor ‘rights’

May 1, 2013 by SPCS Leave a Comment

“Donating blood is not a ‘right,’ according to Australian Red Cross Blood Services, one of the safest blood services in the world. Because of HIV/AIDS risks, the blood service excludes donors who have had “male-to-male sex” within the preceding 12 months. Nor will it take blood from anyone who in the previous 12 months has had a tattoo, a blood transfusion, a body piercing, been in prison, had sex with a prostitute or had a partner with hepatitis B or C.

However, Rodney Croome, “arguably Australia’s leading homosexual rights activist”, has vehemently opposed these policies and accused Red Cross of “homophobia” for its “anti-gay blood policies” – accusing it of denying active homosexual men their “human rights” to be donors. He is currently National Convenor of Australian Marriage Equality, serves as the spokesperson for the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group, and is one of the founders of the Australian Coalition for Equality.

Croome therefore contends that it is the human “right” of every homosexual man who is having regular anal sex, with or without a condom with another man, his partner and/or any other male, to be a blood donor. He claims that Red Cross’s refusal to allow men who have sex with men (MSM) to donate their blood, contravenes anti-discrimination legislation passed in Tasmania in 1998.

When The Australian Federation of AIDS Organizations, Australian Society for HIV Medicine and AIDS Council of New South Wales ran a joint advertisement in homosexual media, supporting the Red Cross stance, based on known HIV/AIDS health risks involving MSM, Croome publicy accused them all of being “Red Cross glove puppets.”

“Do [the three groups] care more about gay men being unfairly stigmatized as lepers, or their own standing with government and the corporate health sector?” he asked.

In Australia, the three bodies stated, those who have male-to-male sex “are the group most likely to have HIV.”

Noting that 80 percent of Australians receive blood at some stage during their lifetime, they said “all people have a right to uncompromised blood supplies and that means screening donors and blood to make sure it is safe.”

“Donating blood is not a ‘right,‘ ” they added.

Croome, who vehemently condemns all who would dare to oppose the legalisation of same-sex marriage as homophobic bigots, is demanding that the Australian federal government legalise same-sex marriage. He uses the same flawed “human rights” and “discriminisation”/victim ‘arguments’ he uses in the “gay blood donor” controversy to now push for “gay-‘marriage’.

In the U.S., the American Red Cross says prospective donors “should not give blood if you have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test, or if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV.”

“You are at risk for getting infected if you … are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977,” it says.

This does NOT constitute discrimination against homosexual men (MSM). Rather it is making choices based on known and well-documented risks.

By the government pandering to the so-called claimed “rights” of homosexuals and any other high risk categories to be donors, the rights of the general public to be protected from harm is compromised or negated. Likewise, pandering to a tiny LGBT minority who demand the “right” to legal marriage, the rights of heterosexual couples already in committed traditional marriages are compromised.

To change the definition of “marriage” by parliamentary fiat to include same-sex couples is to make the concept of marriage utterly meaningless. Same-sex marriage (SSM) is an oxymoron, a contrived nonsense. Once SSM is fused with traditional marriage the ‘hybrid’ created no longer possesses the unique and defining qualities embodied in the original (traditional) term.

In Britain, men who have had sex with men are permanently banned from donating blood.

Spokesperson for the Australian Red Cross Kathy Bowlen told AAP in 2012 that the current rules around blood donation were not discriminatory. ‘It’s never been found to be discriminatory because we’re required to rule people out on the basis of risk,’ she said.

MSM wishing to be donors are excluded based on their sexual activities (behaviour) linked to known inherent health risk, rather than based on sexual orientation per se.

Bowlen said an earlier study showed that a quarter of blood donors between 2005 and 2010 whose blood contained transmissible infections had not been open about information that would have barred them from donating. She said providing accurate information was very important as blood screening does not pick up infections in their early stages.

CNN.com reports in July 2012

Men who have sex with men still are disproportionately affected by the [HIV] virus and account for nearly half the approximately 1.2 million people living with HIV in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But it is a person’s behavior, not their sexual orientation, that puts them at risk say health experts. [Emphasis added]

If differing behaviour is a valid basis for justified discrimination in law, as it is, then traditional marriage warrants formal recognition in name and status, distinct from any other deviation – e.g. polygamous ‘marriage’, same sex ‘marriage’ etc. Traditional marriage differs from a behavioural perspective from all same-sex ‘marriages’ as it involves the exclusive complementarity of both sexes forming the unique union. Futhermore, it differs qualitatively from SSM in that it is oriented towards procreation while SSM is always a sterile union biologically.

References:

Dispute over blood donations divides homosexuals in Australia

Thursday November 17, 2005

http://www.crosswalk.com/1363955/

Review of blood donation discrimination does not go far enough

[Note the implicit bias in this “gay” news headline]

24 May 2012. Anna Leach

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/review-blood-donation-discrimination-does-not-go-far-enough240512

As blood donations decline, U.S. ban on gay donors is examined

By Jen Christensen, CNN

July 7, 2012

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/06/health/gay-men-blood-ban

Australian Marriage Equality, Rodney Croome and Red Cross’s “gay blood ban policy”

April 30, 2013 by SPCS Leave a Comment

In 2008 Rodney Croome, a Tasmanian-based LGBT (lesbian, gay. bi-sexual, transgender) rights activist and academic, accused the Red Cross of homophobia, aligning itself with right-wing hate groups, undermining its own credibility with dodgy statistics, and using scare tactics, with respect to its so-called “gay blood ban policy” (Rodney Croom’s term). Currently National Convenor of Australian Marriage Equality (pro same-sex ‘marriage’ lobby), he wrote:

Why is the Red Cross undermining its own credibility with such dodgy statistics?

Why is it attempting to use …. “scare tactics”?

Why is it aligning itself with right wing hate groups by adopting their strategy?

Do the Red Cross or influential people within it actually believe that gay and bisexual men are highly and uniformly selfish, irresponsible, promiscuous and diseased?

This is hard to believe given the Red Cross’s firm commitment to humanitarian values.

What we can be certain of is that it’s justifying its current gay blood ban policy using some of the grossest and most offensive myths and stereotypes around.

Whether the Red Cross is expressing its own groundless fear of homosexuality, or attempting to appeal to that fear in others, there’s only one word to describe the shaky foundation upon which it is building its case, “homophobia”. (ref. 1)

This sort of inflammatory rhetoric is typical of the political agitators from the Australian Marriage Equality lobby.

Background to Rodney Croome’s accusations against the Red Cross of “homophobia”

In August 2008 a HIV social researcher told an Anti-Discrimination Tribunal hearing in Hobart, Tasmania, that only a small proportion of the gay community engages in risky unsafe sex. Associate Professor Anne Mitchell of Melbourne’s La Trobe University, gave evidence at the hearing of a complaint lodged by Launceston gay man Michael Cain. Mr Cain had complained that the Red Cross discriminated against him by refusing his offer of a blood donation because he had homosexual (anal) sex. He argued screening should be based on the safety of sexual practices, not sexual preference.

Professor Mitchell claimed that gay men who do not practice safe sex are only a small proportion of the gay community. When asked under cross-examination why a study showed more than 86 percent of newly acquired HIV cases were related to male to male sex (MSM), she said it was because HIV had already infected the gay community (ref. 2).

MSM are treated differently to other adults by Red Cross Blood Services because of their well-documented high risk sexual practices involving anal sex. Red Cross will also not take blood from anyone who in the previous 12 months has had a tattoo, a blood transfusion, a body piercing, been in prison, had sex with a prostitute or had a partner with hepatitis B or C.

Senior counsel Jeremy Ruskin, told the hearing that allowing ‘safe’ MSM to donate blood would be“calamitous” and “catastrophic”. He pointed out that MSM “monogamy is a myth” a finding based in part on a study from New Zealand (ref. 1)

A recent survey of New Zealand gay men, confirming this earlier study and undertaken in conjunction with the NZ AIDS Foundation revealed nearly two thirds of gay men are drug users, and the majority also cheat on their partners, frequently. The survey found that 35% of NZ gay men have sex with between 12 and a hundred different strangers every year, often in circumstances very similar to the gay nightclubs gay writer Eric Rofes documented in his book Reviving The Tribe’ (see ref. 3). The NZ survey found 77% of gay men failed to stay monogamous even for six months! (ref. 3)

In the US, the current guidance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is to permanently ban any male who has had sex with another man (MSM), from donating blood, if the sexual activity occurred in the period from 1977 to the present day. There is no restriction on blood donation if the last MSM activity was before 1977.

In Canada today, where homosexual activity was decriminalised in 1969, deferral is “indefinite”, for homosexuals attempting to donate blood (i.e. a total ban) as it is in most European countries.

New Zealand Blood Service Rules

Since 2009, the New Zealand Blood Service (NZBS) defers males from being blood donors, who have engaged in oral or anal intercourse, with or without protection, with another male, for five years. From the formation of the NZBS in 1998 to 2009, the deferral period was ten years, but was reduced to five years following an independent review of blood donation criteria in 2007-8 which found no significant difference in risk to the blood supply for deferral periods of five years compared to ten years.

The five year deferral period for MSM is on par with the five year deferral period for persons engaging in prostitution outside of New Zealand and people who have resided in a country which has a high (1% or more) HIV prevalence. It also applies to someone who carries HBV, HCV. Females who engage in sexual intercourse with a male who has had sex with another male are deferred for twelve months.

Such ‘discrimination’ against MSM, certain prostitutes and certain women, is based upon the “high risk” sexual practices they have engaged in. It is justified discrimination based on the need to safeguard the protect the public good.

Reasoning for restrictions

Blood services first and foremost must ensure that all blood received for donation is safe for transfusion purposes. This is achieved by screening potential donors for high risk behaviors through questionaires and interviews before blood is taken, and subsequent laboratory testing on samples of donated blood.

Blood services commonly justify their bans against MSM using the statistically high prevalence of HIV and hepatitis of MSM in population studies.

Risks are also associated with a regular donor testing positive for HIV, which can have major implications as the donor’s last donation could have been given within the window period for testing and could have entered the blood supply, potentially infecting blood product recipients.

An incident in 2003 in New Zealand saw a regular donor testing positive for HIV and subsequently all blood products made with the donor’s last blood donation had to be recalled. This included NZ$4 million worth of Factor VIII, a blood clotting factor used to treat haemophilliacs which is manufactured from large pools of donated plasma, and subsequently led to a natiowide shortage of Factor VIII and the deferral of non-emergency surgery on haemophilliac patients, costing the health sector millions of dollars more. Screening out those at high risk of bloodborne diseases, including MSM, reduces the potential frequency and impact of such incidents. (ref. 4).

Men who have sex with men still are disproportiately affected by the HIV virus and account for nearly half the approximately 1.2 million people living with HIV in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [2012]. But it is a person’s behavior, not their sexual orientation, that puts them at risk say health experts. (ref. 5)

The fact remains that men who engage in anal sex with men (MSM) are considered such a high health risk when it comes to blood donation, that current policies governing suitable donors in New Zealand are unlikely to be altered.

References

Ref. 1

Is the Red Cross homophobic? by Rodney Croome

http://www.rodneycroome.id.au/comments?id=2777_0_1_0_C

Ref. 2.

Risky sex not common: Witness

Tuesday 12 August, 2008

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-08-12/risky-sex-not-common-witness/473278

Ref. 3

http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=3333

Ref. 4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_male_blood_donor_controversy

Ref. 5

As blood donations decline, U.S. ban on gay donors is examined.

By Jen Christensen CNN. 7 July 2012

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/06/health/gay-men-blood-ban

Further reference

Table 4. Sexual activity-based donor deferral policies in New Zealand

New Zealand MSM oral or anal sex with or without a condom 5 years

Sex for payment 5 years

Sex with IDU, MSM, someone who has received

payment for sex, someone from a country at high risk

of HIV, or someone who carries HBV, HCV

http://www.transfusion.com.au/sites/default/files/Blood%20Review%20Report.pdf

Australian pro “gay” ‘marriage’ lobbyists oppose referendum

April 30, 2013 by SPCS Leave a Comment

Rodney Croome, national director of Australian Marriage Equality – a pro-same-sex ‘marriage’ lobby group – is reported in The Age to be opposed to a referendum being held to determine whether or not same-sex ‘marriages’ should be legalized. Croome, a Tasmania-based Australian LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) rights activist and academic says:

Overseas referenda on marriage equality have been exploited by cashed-up, anti-gay groups to conduct fear and hate campaigns against gay people.

We know from US research that in states where there have been marriage equality referenda there is an increase in the level of anxiety, depression and suicide among gay and lesbian people.

The people who suffer the most are young gay people coming to terms with their sexuality.

An Australian referendum would give anti-gay stalwarts such as Fred Nile the biggest megaphone they have ever had.

This is why anti-equality groups are usually the ones calling for a referendum.

Another big problem is confusion about what’s being proposed.

Comment: Croome asserts that anyone who dares to express any opposition to “gay marriage” is “anti-gay” by definition and will “conduct fear and hate campaigns against gay people” motivated by their hatred of “gays”. This reasoning is absurd. It is logically flawed, false and is incessantly repeated by leading “gay” rights campaigners around the world.

Leading Christian philopsopher Dr William Lane Craig has addressed the fallacy inherent in this type of ‘reasoning’ when he states:

“It occurs to me that if my thinking that homosexual acts are immoral means that I hate homosexual people, then it follows that I must also hate all single people, since I think that pre-marital sex is wrong. Surely such an accusation is patently absurd.”

Many oppose “gay” or same-sex ‘marriage’ (SSM) for reasons that are not in any way connected with a belief that homosexual acts are wrong. They believe traditional marriage is a foundational institution of civil society and has been universally understood to involve a man and a woman in an exclusive relationship. This definition holds true irrespective of what people believe about the morality of homosexual acts between consenting adults. Many practising homosexuals opposes “gay” marriage and want nothing to do with an institution that they consider archaic, patriarchal and a hinderance to their sexual practices and lifestyle.

It is a logical absurdity for anyone, let alone an academic who should know better, to claim that if a person opposes SSM that means they hate “gay” people. It is an obvious non sequitur i.e. it is an inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Ref. 3

Share this:

Share this: