tie me kangaroo down, sport

By Diogenes ( articles ) | Oct 07, 2004

Anglicanism south of the equator continues to win tardy rear-guard actions:

Australia's Anglicans yesterday rejected blessing gay marriages and ordaining ministers in gay relationships, voting to uphold the traditional position that sex outside marriage is wrong.

Of course the cobblestones of King's Cross will be instantly awash in the blood of stage designers and male flight attendants gleefully tire-ironed by howling Anglican vergers. Some clergy were brave enough to speak out against the impending massacre.

The Reverend Jill Varcoe, of Canberra-Goulburn, told the synod that passing such motions made the members complicit in violence against gays and lesbians. She opposed them not as a position on the morality of homosexuality but "the morality of what we do as powerful and public people when we vote on motions of this kind".

But Jill, dear, are you saying that voting "as powerful and public people" in favor of gay clergy and gay marriage is just as arbitrary an act of violence as voting against?

"I find wilful contradiction arises when we say to people: 'You can only have sex in marriage, but we are not permitting you to marry'."

Can't see it, Jill. Gays are free to marry with precisely the same liberties and limitations as straights (viz., anyone of the opposite sex that is not spoken for). Say Mr. So-and-so has a maniacal desire to have carnal relations with Zelda. I point out to him, "You can only have lawful carnal relations with Zelda in the context of marriage. As it happens, Zelda is already my wife, and you are not permitted to marry her. I suggest you work to broaden your appetites." Where exactly is the wilful contradiction?