On Friday, James' elder daughter, Ho Jung, became an Australian citizen. I joined them at the citizenship ceremony -- the first time I had been to one. It was welcoming, simple, but solemn. The Speaker of the A.C.T. Legislative Assembly, Wayne Berry MLA, gave a short speech of welcome. The candidates then became citizens by making the pledge of allegiance.

From this time forward, under God, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.

Mr Berry presented each new citizen with a Certificate of Citizenship and we sang "Advance Australia Fair" together.

Here are James and Ho Jung, a little sad at another tie with Korea being broken, but happy to be Australians together.

Australians all let us rejoice For we are young and free We've golden soil and wealth for toil, Our home is girt by sea: Our land abounds in nature's gifts Of beauty rich and rare, In history's page let every stage Advance Australia fair, In joyful strains then let us sing Advance Australia fair.

Beneath our radiant Southern Cross, We'll toil with hearts and hands, To make this Commonwealth of ours Renowned of all the lands, For those who've come across the seas We've boundless plains to share, With courage let us all combine To advance Australia fair. In joyful strains then let us sing, Advance Australia fair.

Muriel Porter, interviewed on The Religion Report (ABC Radio National, 6 July 2005), concerning the ACC suspension of the North Americans.

David Rutledge:Dr Muriel Porter is a Melbourne-based author and academic, and she's also a former lay representative to the Anglican Consultative Council. I asked her to explain the significance and some of the history of the ACC.

Muriel Porter: It was a very significant body when it was founded towards the end of the 1960s, a time of great interest in the role of laity. That was the body that actually gave the go-ahead for women clergy in the Anglican communion, way back in the early '70s. And this body was set up really to be a sort of Anglican communion standing committee. In other words, you've got all the bishops meeting once every ten years, at the Lambeth Conference. The idea was that the Anglican Consultative Council would meet every three years and become a sort of standing committee, look after the Anglican communion in the in-between times.

Very quickly however, when this body moved to say Yes, they could have women clergy, the Lambeth bishops moved to set up the primates as a separate body who now meet annually. They have become effectively the standing committee. So the ACC has been a bit sidelined.

David Rutledge: Given that the vote was so narrow, doesn't that indicate that the conservatives aren't quite as dominant a force on the Council as it may appear?

Muriel Porter: Yes, it does indeed indicate that. But nevertheless it got there. By excluding the Americans and the Canadians, the conservatives were able to edge over the line. I think that indicates what I believe is really what's happening internationally. This isn't about homosexuality, it isn't about the Bible, it's about power. And the game that is being played internationally is a power game of a very ugly kind.

David Rutledge: And you've indicated that there may be knock-on effects now for women clergy, women's issues. What might these be?

Muriel Porter: Well it's already happening. Just recently, just the last few days, a group of bishops in England, including one of the most senior leading, intelligent, forward-thinking bishops, Bishop Tom Wright of Durham, have put out a letter saying it's not time to have women bishops at the moment because the communion is in such strife anyway. So you see, it's already happening. If you create all this disunity over one thing, then other things, such as women bishops, can then be held back on the basis that this is going to be even more fracturing to unity.

David Rutledge: You say this is predominantly about power. Is it also about the fact that the worldwide Anglican communion, in lacking any centralisation of power or authority, is actually ungovernable, and that that's the issue here? Sexuality just happens to be the current catalyst, but it could just as easily be some other controversy?

Muriel Porter: Well that's an interesting question because you see we've never really thought of the Anglican communion as something which should be governed. The consensus has always been Yes, this might strain our unity, but let's find ways in which we can still keep together. That happened over women's ordination. I remember there were talks about schism there, but the general consensus was Well you do it if you want to do it, but don't expect us to do it if we don't want to do it. But we'll still be talking to each other. And that's the way that we expect the church to operate; it happened over divorce reform, which was a far more contentious issue a century or so ago. Now we get the gay issue, which if it followed the path that the Anglican communion has followed in the past, would say Well the American church happens to believe that this is the way they should go, we don't agree with you, we won't introduce it, but we will honour your right to go that direction. In the same way that we in America or Australia or England will say to churches in Africa, which has been said, We don't like polygamy, it's not part of the way we would want to operate, but in your cultural circumstances, we can see that you might have to allow a man who converts with more than one wife, not to put some of those wives aside, because in that culture, that would be terrible for them. That's the way the international church should operate, not by people from outside America saying We won't accept that you have a right to behave in the way you have behaved.

David Rutledge: I wonder though if there's also a degree of politics being played among the centrists, or even the liberals, in that nobody's ever going to lose by opposing homosexuality, you know, gay clergy, and people in same-sex relationships will always be in a minority, and so the safe course of action when the time comes to nail your colours to the mast is to side with the majority. How prevalent do you think that sort of pragmatism is among the clergy on this issue?

Muriel Porter: That is exactly what's happening. Because gay issues, gay people, are in the minority. It's interesting, you see, that this same schismatic situation didn't occur over women's ordination, because women are 52% of the population. Or over divorce. Divorce, much more to do with exactly what Jesus said in the Bible; if we're talking about absolute adherence to the plain teaching of Scripture, look what Jesus had to say about divorce. But, the church came round into a different pragmatic situation because lots of people in the community who were churchgoers, were either going through divorce themselves, or their children, or their brothers or their sisters, or someone was being divorced. And so the situation became that the churches had to really re-think their attitude to marriage in that regard. Because these were not minority issues.

David Rutledge: You say that you don't feel that we're quite at the point of schism yet. What would schism look like if we arrived at that point?

Muriel Porter: Not quite sure what schism would look like, because it's already a very loose-knit federation, the international Anglican communion. I guess what it would look like would be that that would become even looser, but some people would go to one form of Lambeth Conference, and other bishops would go to another one, that one group of churches would meet together at one level, another at another level. I think that might be what might happen; it might be what needs to happen, David, rather than for, as you said, pragmatic people to say "Oh, look, my heart's really with gay people because I've got a gay son or nephew, or neighbour" or whatever, but "because we've got to hold the church together I'll vote in the other direction". That's very dangerous spiritually.

David Rutledge: And so you're saying that you feel a split within the global communion is inevitable and perhaps in a way, desirable?

Muriel Porter: No, I didn't say a split, I said different ways of operating, different ways of working together. Because the whole way we work together as an Anglican communion now only dates from the late 19th century, when the first Lambeth Conference was held. Before that, there were churches from the Anglican communion in other parts of the world that didn't feel this necessity to have this sort of absolute agreement on things. So I think going back to a more fluid, looser situation might be a way forward.

The newly-elected Anglican Primate of Australia was inteviewed in the Sydney Sun-Herald of 24 July.

"Some divisions in the church might be seen in better perspective if they took second place to the most important thing, which is the mission of the church, communicating that and entrusting that to the wider community," he said.

Asked, "Do you mean the issues of women bishops and homosexuality?" Dr Aspinall replied,

Not that they're unimportant, but I think the mission of the church, communicating the gospel, the notion that God is real, that God accepts and welcomes and loves people and that the way to find fulfillment in life is by being in touch with God. Everything else becomes secondary in relation to that. They're not unimportant issues, don't get me wrong. But that overarching issue about the good news of the kingdom of God is our primary concern.

Archbishop Aspinall's emphasis on the good news of the gospel and the kingdom is right and important. Sadly, however, the present attitudes of the church towards women and (male and female) homosexuals give the Australian people a negative impression and understanding of gospel and God's kingdom. Until the Australian church assertively removes barriers of sex, sexuality, social class, culture and ethnicity, its proclamation of the Gospel to Australians is hindered.

Postscript:
In response to a similar comments that I made on Titusonenine, 'Silvanus' asked me to "reflect on why the Anglican Church is most vigorous in Sydney, where incidentally thay have an Aussie Chinese bishop and new outreach to ethnic groups is underway, under Peter Jensen's visionary leadership."

"Lumping together acceptance of homosexuality and women's ordination with 'proclamation of the Gospel' ", Silvanus said, " is empty rhetoric with no basis in reality. The fact is, the Anglican Church in Australia has declined practically everywhere except Sydney."

Silvanus makes the mistake of assuming that coincidence is cause. Yes, to its credit, attendances in the Sydney Diocese are growing. But, to my knowledge, there is no evidence that is because of exclusion of women and homosexuals from ministry. Rather, perhaps, it is because the Sydney churches vigorously proclaim the saving grace of God in Jesus Christ. Perhaps they might grow even more quickly if they were more inclusive.

Similarly, if some Australian Anglican churches outside Sydney were to proclaim Jesus more assertively and welcomingly they also might grow more. That is only to be encouraged, of course.

The Australia Institute has published a 'Webpaper', Mapping Homophobia in Australia, by Michael Flood and Clive Hamilton (June 2005). Some of the findings are unsurprising, but the results comparing membership of Christian denominations with attitudes to homosexuality are interesting.

[A]mong those who declare a religious affiliation, Catholics are the most tolerant in Australia, with only 34% believing that homosexuality is immoral (although those affiliated with the Anglican and Uniting Churches have similar scores). The most homophobic religious community in Australia are Baptists -- where 68% believe homosexuality is immoral. They are followed closely by evangelical Christians (62%). These counter-intuitive findings suggest that the Catholic Church has less doctrinal authority over its congregation than some other Christian and non-Christian churches and that Catholics have become adept at interweaving their own moral instincts with the various proscriptions of their church.

It is interesting to note that while homophobia is high amongst Methodists (46%) the difference of opinion between Methodist men and women is particularly wide, with twice as many men (60%) than women (32%) believing homosexuality is immoral.

Those who say they have no religion are the most tolerant on this issue in Australia with only 19% believing homosexuality to be immoral.

The paper uses the word 'homophobia' to refer to "unreasoning fear or hatred of homosexuals and to antihomosexual beliefs and prejudices. While not a phobia in the literal sense, it is a useful term of social description for everyday emotional tension about sexual identity that is widespread among heterosexuals. While not everyone who is homophobic engages in discriminatory behaviour towards gay men and lesbians they are more likely to contribute to a general attitude of intolerance."

In the study the degree of 'homophobia' is identified by counting those who believe that homosexuality is immoral. This is used a proxy for homophobia, although the two concepts are not identical, as attitudes to this question are known through a large public opinion database complied using self-completion interviews with 24,718 respondents aged 14 and over.

Overall, 35% of the Australia's population aged 14 years and above believes that homosexuality is immoral, including about 43% of men and 27% of women.

Within the major cities there are substantial variations in the level of homophobia by region. In Melbourne, the inner city is the least homophobic and the outer East and South the most -- these are the areas most likely to include archetypical conservative nuclear suburban families.

Overall Australia's most homophobic areas are in SE Queensland (excluding the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast), Central/South-West Queensland and the Burnie/Western district of Tasmania where 50% believe homosexuality is immoral. The least homophobic region is the Inner City of Melbourne (14%), followed by Central Perth (21%) and Central Melbourne (26%). Northern Sydney, Central Sydney, Melbourne North and Melbourne Outer North-East, Western Brisbane and Adelaide Eastern all have percentages only slightly less tolerant.

Older Australians are considerably more homophobic than young adults. But boys aged 14 to 17 are much more inclined to hold antigay views than young and middle-aged adults.

Homophobic attitudes are closely related to levels of education--25% of those with tertiary education hold homophobic views compared to 40-50% among those who did not complete high school. Partly reflecting this, people in higher socioeconomic groups are less homophobic than people in lower socioeconomic groups.

There are weaknesses in the Australia Institute's paper, as Andrew points out

If we look at other polling on this subject, this distinction between the feelings and the act seems to be there. For example, in a 2001 Morgan survey 36% of people thought that homosexuality was immoral. But in the 1999-2000 International Social Science Survey 57% thought the sexual relations between adults of the same sex was always or almost always wrong. If the question had been about sexual acts rather than sexual feelings the Catholic response may have been different.

The Australia Institute authors . . . draw a link between attitudes as to whether homosexuality is immoral or not and 'homophobia', though they concede that 'not everyone who is homophobic engages in discriminatory behaviour'. But I think they are nevertheless missing important distinctions that we can see in other polls. While perhaps most people would rather not think about two men or two women having sex, this doesn't necessarily even influence attitudes, let alone behaviour.

Way back in 1991-92 the Rights in Australia survey found that more than 60% of respondents gave approval or qualified approval to homosexuals teaching in schools and more than three-quarters approved of homosexuals holding prominent positions in public life. In a 1995 Morgan poll only 25% of respondents nominated homosexuals as people they would not like to have as neighbours. These surveys suggest that some people don't like the idea of homosexuality, but they are not 'intolerant'. It's a pity that the Australia Institute's survey could not explore these distinctions. As it is, we are left with little idea as to whether Catholics are less 'homophobic', or just have different ideas about what causes homosexual feeling.

Just what we need in our Parish, a self-cleaning church!

In Rome, the 'Dives in Misericordia' church, designed by U.S.-based architect Richard Meier, is made of self-cleaning concrete that stays white. Meier won an international competition called by the Vicariate of Rome in 1995. Work began in 1998 and it took 5 years to build the church. Meier based his project on masterpieces of the past such as Alvar Aalto's churches in Finland and Le Corbusier's work in Ronchamp. Three curved sails of white cement stand out above the surrounding buildings and fields.

Italcementi, the project's principal technical sponsor, provided innovative high tech materials for the construction of the church, including new Bianco TX Millennium white cement. "Now we have to change and think of the product not just for architectural purposes, but also for environmental purposes," said Francesco Galimberti, spokesman for Italcementi.

In a test, the company coated 75,000 square feet of road surface on the outskirts of Milan with photocatalytic cement. It found nitrogen oxide levels were reduced by up to 60 percent, depending on weather conditions. A similar experiment in France found nitrogen oxide levels were 20 percent to 80 percent lower in a wall plastered with photocatalytic cement than one with regular cement. Encouraged by such results, the European Union last year earmarked $2.27 billion for a project to develop "smart" construction materials that would break down nitrogen oxides and other toxic substances. (Thanks to Oh la la Paris!)

In its first term of office, the Australian Labor Party government of the Australian Capital Territory, led by Jon Stanhope, made much progress in law reform towards greater equality for gay and lesbian people. The Stanhope team was reelected to government last year, with a first-ever absolute majority in the Legislative Assembly. Thus emboldened, it is now seeking public comment on proposals for recognition of same sex relationship in the ACT.

Introducing a discussion paper for public comment, Chief Minister Stanhope, said that his Government,

believes that every individual is entitled to the right to participate fully in society and receive the support and protection of the law, whatever their sexual orientation or gender identity. In its first term of office Labor reformed a number of ACT laws to eliminate entrenched discrimination against gays, lesbians and transgender and intersex members of our community.

In its second term it wants to address the significant question of how our society might formally and legally recognise relationships between couples from the gay, lesbian, transgender and intersex members of the community.

This discussion paper invites public submissions on the general question and three possible options: registration, civil union and marriage. Registration would allow same sex couples (and unmarried opposite sex couples) to register a qualifying relationship with the Territory Registrar-General, in much the same way as a birth, death or marriage is registered.

Civil unions are non-religious legal unions that give parties to the union the same legal status and formal recognition as marriage. A formal ceremony would be required. The State of Vermont was the first jurisdiction in the United States to introduce laws to allow civil unions. The Vermont law states as a general principle that parties to a civil union will have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law as a husband and wife in a marriage. New Zealand has followed a similar approach.

The ACT Assembly could also legislate to state that the definition of 'marriage' under Territory law includes a relationship between two persons of the same sex. A significant obstacle to this is the position of 'marriage' under federal law, as the Constitution gives the Federal Parliament overruling power concerning marriage law.

I favour the civil union option. To enter into a partnership that is intended to last for life is a solemn and serious matter. A public ceremony would give proper emphasis to its importance. It would also be great opportunity for celebration and public acknowledgement of love and commitment!

Gay and lesbian employees of Australia's federal government are still waiting for equal access to superannuation benefits that the goverment granted to all people working in the private sector in June 2004. The Government pledged to remove discrimination toward same-sex couples from all super legislation as a concession for its much-publicised ban on gay marriage, but has done nothing. The offensiveness of the government's inaction is starkly clear from a recent newsletter of advice from ComSuper, the agency that administers Australian Government employee superannuation.

Where your pension goes when you die? -- Eligible Spouse

When we determine whether a spouse is eligible for a pension, de facto spouses are generally viewed the same way as legal spouses. The test applied is whether or not the person had a 'marital relationship' with a pensioner at the time they died. To be eligible, the spouse would have lived with a pensioner as their husband or wife on a permanent and bona fide domestic basis at the time the pensioner died and for three years before.

The use of the words 'husband' and 'wife' in the legislation mean that same sex partners cannot be eligible spouses.

The blame is not with ComSuper, but the conservative Howard government. Many states and territories provide equal benefits to same-sex partners of their employees. The harm is particularly vicious in Canberra, where both members of a same-sex couple are likely to work for the federal government.

Due to the Government's stalling, we have a two-tiered system where equality exists in the private sector and not in the public sector. Gay rights activist Rodney Croome has speculated that the Government is stalling until it figures out a way to avoid mentioning "same-sex couples" in public sector superannuation legislation. They got around this in the private super amendments by labelling them "interdependent relationships". Australia's federal government employees, meanwhile, are excluded from equality of access to superannuation.

Beginning today, 27 July, at the initative of the National Council of Churches of Australia and others, many Australian Churches began 40 days of prayer in the face of drought. Our local church, St. Philip's is participating. And our minister blessed us all with a sprinkling of water, as we sang:

In water we grow, secure in the womb, and speechlessly know love's safety and room. Baptizing and blessing we publish for good the freeing, caressing safe keeping of God. In water we wash: the dirt of each day, its trouble and rush are carried away. In Christ re-created by love's cleansing art, self-will and self-hatred dissolve and depart. Brian Arthur Wren

In water we dive, and cannot draw breath, then surface alive, rebounding from death. Our old self goes under, in Christ dead and drowned. We rise, washed in wonder, by love clad and crowned. In water we dwell, for by its deep flow through bloodstream and cell, we live, think, and grow. Praise God, love outflowing, whose well of new birth baptizes our knowing, and waters the earth. Tune: Paederborn (1765)

There has been some rain, even flood, in some areas, but very much more is need to overcome the deep dryness and empty reservoirs left by years of low rainfall. Some areas are still without any rain.

But the days prayer are not simple to ask for rain, but to reflect "in the face of drought". We in Australia, the world's dryest continent, have not done well in our use and management of water. The is very little reuse of water by cities, for example and irrigation practices often are inefficient in use of water.

Thus the National Council of Churches says:

[W]e understand that when we make our prayers of intercession at this time -- and at any time -- we are expressing our own longings, our yearnings, in a way that links them with the promise of God for well-being and wholeness. We do it in faith, because of our faith story--a story that speaks first and foremost about the gracious coming of God to us and of God's initiative, God's desire to have us whole. It is a story that speaks of the beginning of a new creation. We do it that we might be in tune with and open to the Spirit of God.

But when we pray, we must know, too, that God's promises come to reality as we give our 'yes', our consent. So, when we pray during this season of 40 days of prayer, we know that we are also praying that we might be so open to the Spirit of God that there will be a response of repentance and transformation: repentance for the ways we misuse the environment, cause great destruction to natural resources and changes to weather patterns; and transformation in our behaviour and in government policy, not least in terms of water conservation.

All things look to you, O Lord, to give them their food in due season; look in mercy on your people, and hear our prayer for those whose lives and possessions are threatened by drought. In your mercy restore your creation and heal our land. So guide and bless your people, that we may enjoy the fruits of the earth and give you thanks with grateful hearts, through our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

God our heavenly Father through your Son you promised to those seeking first your kingdom and your righteousness all things necessary for bodily welfare: send us, we pray, in this time of need, rain to water the earth, that we may receive its produce to strengthen and sustain us and always praise you for your bounty; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. (APBA, p. 205)

Another piece from the The Tablet, 23 July 05, caught my eye: "My conscience: right or wrong?" written by Sabtiri Ghosh. Here is a summary.

On 28 June, Canadian New Democrat MP Charlie Angus voted with his party to support legalisation of same-sex marriage, despite a threat from his local priest that he would be barred from Communion. Mr Angus had become a politican because of his faith. "In many ways, Mr Angus and his family epitomise the very vision of marriage the [Roman Catholic Church] is trying desperately to uphold.", Ghosh writes.

Mr Angus's priest and his bishop gave mixed signals on whether they might withold communion the MP support the Government's legislation. Canadian Catholic statements had been much influenced by Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2003. Ghosh writes that Mr Angus's situation "is only the most glaring example of how the CDF document threatened the Canadian Church's outreach to politicians -- and, in the process, virtually scripted the drama surrounding Mr Angus's vote.".

Some Canadian Catholic bishops would have preferred to recognise that the fairest way to reconcile the equality demands of gays and lesbians with the vital need for freedom of religion and freedom of conscience was to take marriage out of the public realm and to adopt a new system of governance for adult interdependent relationships. But that was something the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops felt unable to accept. Thus some local priests like Fr Lemire of Mr Angus's parish were not restrained against imposing formal disciple. "It was not an idle threat," said the priest of his ultimatum. He made it, he explained, only after intensively studying the CDF document and finding that "it is very, very clear on the obligation of Catholic politicians".

None of the the Canadian Catholic bishops, other than Bishop Henry, who is Fr Lemire's bishop, had instructed that politicians be denied Communion or excommunicated for acquiescing to gay marriage. "You do not lose your right to belong to a community because you do not vote in the right way," Cardinal Marc Ouellet of Quebec told a parliamentary committee on 13 July when pressed for his views on Mr Angus' case. Yet, Mr Angus was left to describe himself as being "suddenly in the category of notorious public sinner, simply because I did what I was elected to do, which was to reflect and vote on civil legislation." "I felt that whatever else was at stake, I couldn't allow the Eucharist to be used as a political pressure point."
-----------------------------------
Footnote: Extract from Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons

10. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.

---

Not only is the Vatican attempting to nobble politicians, it appears to be considering a strenghtening of barriers against gay men entering the priesthood, celebate or otherwise -- though as yet there is no indication the Pope's intentions. In the National Catholic Reporter, 4(39), 8 July 2005, John L. Allen Jr. writes:

Sources indicate that the long-awaited Vatican document on the admission of homosexuals to seminaries is now in the hands of Pope Benedict XVI. The document, which has been condensed from earlier versions, reasserts the response given by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in 2002, in response to a dubium submitted by a bishop on whether a homosexual could be ordained: "A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency, is not fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders." That reply was published in the Nov.-Dec. 2002 issue of Notitiae, the official publication of the congregation.

It is up to Benedict XVI to decide whether to issue the new document as it stands, to send it back for revision, or to shelve it on the basis that for now such a document is "inopportune." Several American bishops [. . .] hope Benedict will decide to put the document in a desk drawer for the time being, on the grounds that it will generate controversy and negative press without changing anything in terms of existing discipline. As one bishop put it . . ., "the policy against ordaining homosexuals is already clear -- the only interesting question is, what do you mean by a 'homosexual'? At one end of the continuum, it could refer to anyone who once had a fleeting same-sex attraction; at another, it could be restricted to someone who is sexually active and openly part of a 'gay pride' movement. Most people would exclude those extremes, but where is the line drawn in between?" . . .

I keep saying that even as a non-Roman catholic, I find The Tablet to be an fine publication. The 23 July 2005 edition has an interesting feature article by Shaikh Abdal-Hakim Murad, who teaches Islamic Studies in the Faculty of Divinity at University of Cambridge, is imam of the Cambridge Mosque, and chair of the Muslim Academic Trust. He says that Wahhabism, the hardline ideology at the core of current terrorism, has cut deep wounds in Islam, and helped alienate young UK Muslims. He considers whether Islam in the UK can be freed of this influence.

Fortunately, serious moves are under way to challenge the extremists on religious grounds. The most recent was an ecumenical conference in Jordan, held between 4 and 6 of July, at which the assembled leaders of Sunni and Shia Islam issued a joint statement banning the key Wahhabi practice of considering other Muslims to be unbelievers. The immediate context for the conference was Wahhabi violence against Shia and other non-Wahhabi communities in Iraq; but the problem was acknowledged to be global.

The article is well worth reading, though no doubt a few Muslims may disagree with it. Murad has written numerous articles on Islam, including, on this topic, The poverty of fanaticism, and Recapturing Islam from the terrorists.

There has been wide coverage of the public hanging of two allegedly gay teenagers in Mashad in north eastern Iran on 19 July 2005 for the 'crime' of homosexuality. One youth was aged 18 and the other was a minor under the age of 18. The alleged offenses were committed when they were but 16 years of age. Before execution, they had been imprisoned for 14 months and beaten with 228 lashes. Iranian law allows hanging of girls as young as nine and boys as young as fifteen.

Peter Thatchell, spokesman for London-based human right group, OutRage! said:

This is just the latest barbarity by the Islamo-fascists in Iran. The entire country is a gigantic prison, with Islamic rule sustained by detention without trial, torture and state-sanctioned murder. According to Iranian human rights campaigners, over 4,000 lesbians and gay men have been executed since the Ayatollahs seized power in 1979. Altogether, an estimated 100,000 Iranians have been put to death over the last 26 years of clerical rule. The victims include women who have sex outside of marriage and political opponents of the Islamist government. Last August, a 16 year old girl, Atefeh Rajabi, was hanged for 'acts incompatible with chasity'.

Harley, at Gayety.net, himself no slouch as a gay activist, splashes the cold water of objectivity on the more hysterical commentary, such as that above.

Two boys are dead; hanged, ostensibly for the knifepoint rape of a 13 year old. It is hard to keep a level head in the face of haunting images leading up to their execution, especially when we are told they share our sexual minority. Yet, this is exactly what we must do if we are simultaneously being fed alarming information about the executioners by those currently engaged against them in propaganda warfare. Before we turn into righteous vigilantes, avenging the lives of two cute young gay boys by engaging in a modern crusade, we owe it to splash some cold water on the issue.

The first news agency to publish was Iranian local publication, Quds, with the statement that "the two had abducted a 13-year-old boy a year ago and raped him at knife-point. The report added that both convicts were also given 228 lashes each for drinking, disturbing the peace and theft."

Harley goes on to note that Andrew Sullivan, OutRage! spokesman Peter Thatchell, and those following them, notably avoid the rape of a 13 year old boy at knifepoint, but add plenty of words of abject disgust so that "selective reporting of only part of the story has resulted in a maelstrom amongst the queer community, usually skeptical members of the liberal Left, now firmly against the Islamic world, and totally oblivious to being hookwinked" "Thankfully, the mainstream media, who can afford to hire respectable reporters capable of objectivity," Harley adds, "has come to the rescue of those who value truth in a world of propaganda."

I accept the point Harley makes. Nonetheless I mention all this, not to add to a ghoulish story, but to urge readers to protest to the Iranian Ambassador in their countries and to demand that their governments at the very least protest. Regardless of their offence, flogging and hanging of teenagers, or adults for that matter, is barbaric. Western governments are slow to condemn this murderous regime, preferring aid and trade. The European Union has refused in the past three years to table a resolution at the United Nations Human Rights Commission to condemn the violations of human rights in Iran. Instead, it has engaged in a feeble "human rights dialogue."

Postscript: Topmost apple has assembled some more information.

Cartoon: Kevin et Alex

Links:
Full story in Farsi from ISNA, with three photographs from http://isna.ir/Main/NewsView.aspx?ID=News-556874. Information in English from http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2916 and http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/07/iran_executes_2.html

Surely it must have occurred to Icebreaker that their model, who is spectacularly not wearing their wonderful fine merino clothing, could only be described as horny?

In Time 10 July 2005, Andrew Sullivan writes of the "quiet power" of British stoicism in the face of the recent bombings.

Americans often react to crises with action and emotion. They see a problem and want to fix it. Brits' reflexive instinct at such times is often calm and steady endurance. In London last week, the immediate quiet was perhaps the most striking thing--followed by an insistence on normality. [. . .] It's not callousness or indifference to carry on as normal; it's quiet defiance. [. . .] The English, as Orwell once observed, celebrate their freedom in small ways: gardening, sports, pets, pubs, stamps, crossword puzzles. Part of this is now patriotic mythology. But part is also the enculturated national DNA to see these things not as trivial but as integral to the life of a free people. These things didn't stop, even during the Blitz, when thousands lived through night after night with the prospect of being incinerated by bombs from the sky. Part of fighting the war, the Brits realized, was military. But part was also a refusal to change a way of life, however small its detail, however petty its peeves.

[I]t seems to me we need both approaches in a war on terrorism. We need to fight back militarily when appropriate. We need boldness and aggression. But we also need to steel ourselves for casualties, for failures, for mistakes along the way. Victory in this war will be elusive and never complete. As long as some maniac wants to kill himself and others in a subway or supermarket, we will not be able to stop him. And so stoicism matters. Getting on with our lives matters. Spelling bees, college football, celebrity gossip, high school proms: the simple continuance of these things is integral to the meaning of freedom.

Or so the British have long proved [. . .] [W]e could do worse than remember their stoicism. And how modestly powerful it is.

An Australian victim of the London bombings died yesterday. Australians have experienced the Bali bombing, the December tsunami and, at home, injury, loss of life, and heavy destruction of property from bushfire, cyclone, flood and earthquake. These, and Mr Sullivan's essay, set me to thinking about how we respond to such things.

We are more free with our emotions than our British cousins; our culture is more mixed. Australians are quick to 'lend a hand' when trouble strikes. Volunteers are the life-blood of rural fire-fighting, householder emergency assistance, first-aid, lifesaving and the coastguard. Many millions are given to national asistance appeals.

Australians have a strong 'business as usual' streak as well. We've kept much of the Britsh defiance. We have a peculiar mixture of national pride and self-deprecation. We are quick to forget the troubles of the past and live in the present. This makes us optimistic. But sometimes, it seems to me, we lack the political will for the long haul. We make it difficult for our politicans to invest in things that will pay dividends to us and our neigbours not next year, but long into the future. For instance, Australia, to our shame, is one of the very few countries that has joined the U.S. in not signing the Kyoto protocol on climate change.

Oddspot: There was a savagely unfortunate irony in the wording of the placard advertising the movie The Descent that adorned the side of the no. 30 bus bombed in London's Tavistock Square last week.

United Nations special rapporteur on arbitrary executions, Philip Alston, has called for an immediate review of the process that led to a man in Northern Nigeria being sentenced to death under Islamic Sharia law after admitting to homosexual sex. The man had been accused of having sex with a much younger man and was acquitted of that charge. But after the judge asked him if he had previously had homosexual sex, the man said yes. The judge then sentenced him to be stoned to death.

In his recent Presidential Address to the General Synod of the Church of England, Archbishop Rowan Williams said that the 'listening process' on homosexuality set up by the Anglican Consultative Council will fail, "if it does not listen to the voices of homosexual people within the developing world, so often horrifyingly at risk of violence and persecution, just as much as it will fail if it does not listen to those churches in the developing world that are struggling with great difficulty to find a pastoral way forward that is true to their convictions and does not expose their people to real danger."

The sentencing of the Northern Nigerian gives brutal context to the cultural and pastoral dilemma faced by some African Christians concerning homosexuality. Archbishop Akinola has been noted for his strong views, but it would be most fair to him to read his views at reasonable length in a 2003 (?) Church Times article.

[H]omosexuality is flagrant disobedience to God, which enables people to pervert God's ordained sexual expression with the opposite sex. In this way, homosexuals have missed the mark; they have shown themselves to be trespassers of God's divine laws. Protagonists of homosexuality try to elevate this aberration, unknown even in animal relationships, beyond divine scrutiny, while church leaders, who are called to proclaim the undiluted word of God like the prophets of old, are unashamedly looking the other way.

. . . The acceptance of homosexuality and lesbianism as normal is the triumph of disobedience; the enthronement of human pride over the will of God. This lifestyle is a terrible violation of the harmony of the eco-system of which mankind is a part. As we are rightly concerned by the depletion of the ozone layer, so should we be concerned by the practice of homosexuality.

The power relationships are complex. On 1 March, 2005 at a conference in Nigeria of 300 bishops, Nigerian President, Olusegun Obasanjo, has praised Anglican bishops from Africa for what he called their principled stand. He told the bishops he had followed "with keen interest your principled stand against the totally unacceptable tendency towards same-sex marriages and homosexual practice. Such a tendency is clearly un-Biblical, unnatural and definitely un-African." Michael Akanji, of Stonewall Initiative - Nigeria, has written on Unholy alliance: how power fuels homophobia in Nigeria

In such an environment, it is understandable that ordinary church members in Nigeria and elsewhere in Africa fear for their security should they be seen to be 'soft' on homosexuality. Memories of terrible civil war in Nigeria are not far distant. But one must oppose the imprisonment and judicial murder of gay and lesbian people. African Christians surely cannot support such things.

I have no sympathy at all for church leaders anywhere who compromise the church's stance on justice and freedom by entangling themselves in mutually supportive power relationships with governments.

Link: Behind the Mask is an excellent information resource on gay and lesbian people in Africa.

The Tablet of 9 July 2005 reports that Cardinal Varela of Madrid told Pope Benedict XVI last week that in Spain "there is a denial not only of faith, but also of human intellect, as can be seen in the recent legislation on marriage and the family". (The Spanish Parliament passed legislation on 30 June that makes same-sex unions legal in Spain.) In response, the Pope quite reasonably asked Spaniards to spread the word of God "in a society thirsty for real human values, which is suffering from such great divisions". "You must go to the very limits of society," he said, "to bring to everyone the Light of the Word of Christ about the meaning of life, the family and society, even reaching those who live in the desert of neglect and poverty."

However, a more strident tone was evident in an opinion piece by Francesco Valiente in the official Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano dated 4 July 2005 in which same-sex marriages are seen as a "defeat for humanity". Zenit offers extracts in English:

The article says that the Catholic Church's opposition to this initiative involves, not a "war of religion," since the family is not something imposed by the Church, but rather the heritage of great cultures. "It belongs to the whole of humanity because it is inscribed in nature from its beginning. And it has survived, throughout the centuries, the screening of philosophical, scientific, anthropological and social systems."

"The Christian dignity of marriage, instead of diminishing a profoundly human value, consolidates and reinforces it. For this reason, any attempt to change God's plan for the family is also an attempt to disfigure the most authentic face of humanity."

"The triumphalist tones with which some 'progressive' politicians and intellectuals have commented on the law that legalizes homosexual unions, equating them to heterosexual marriage, elicits incredulity and bitterness," the article asserts. "Not only believers, but any person with common sense, free of prejudiced blinkers, cannot but recognize in this act a degrading defeat for humanity," it adds. "Whether the 'enlightened' politicians (and their entourage of obliging 'maîtres à penser') like it or not, the family, based on marriage between a man and a woman is not an invention of Catholics."

"It is singular that a state which proclaims itself 'secular' and 'liberal' attempts to impose its own ideological system on such a complex reality," Valiente argues. It is the task, not just of believers, he says, "to stop this degeneration of humanity by guarding the original 'vocabulary' of the family, of marriage, of love which for millennia has written the history of generations."

There are only assertions here, and no argument. The 'logic' breaks down. The Pope does well to encourage us to spread the word of Christ. The Roman Catholic church generally does well in supporting the family. But there is no connection at all between same-sex marriages and any purported attack on the family, attempt to transform "God's plan for the family", or disfigurement of the "authentic image of humanity." The 'vocabulary' of family has not been fixed for millennia but has changed constantly since the beginning of history.

In response to my mention of snow on the hills near Canberra, a couple of my American friends were surprised that there is any snow in the 'sunburnt country'

Australia's snow country covers about 6,500 sq km in Tasmania and 5,200 sq km on the mainland, the combined area being only 0.15% of all Australia. The Snowy Mountains, the closest snowfields to Canberra, have one of Australia largest areas of snow country -- about 2500 sq km. The 'snow country' includes small alpine areas above the treeline and subalpine covered areas down to about 300-500 metres below the treeline (around 1,300 metres above sea level on the on the main land). Much of the 'high country' is now at last part of an integrated system of Alpine National Parks The alpine areas are tiny and especially precious. 'Alpine' means those areas between the treeline and any zone of permanent snow and ice cover, of which there is none in Australia -- it all melts in the Spring. The alpine treeline occurs where the mean temperature of the warmest month is about 10 degrees C, a physiological limit of tree growth. As the Australian alps are not far from the sea, their summer climate is cool and moist and the treelines, at about 1,800 to 1,850 metres, are lower than more continental mountains with more extreme temperatures (such as the Rocky Mountains of North America). Only 250 sq km of the Snowy Mountains is truly alpine, including an area of about 100 sq km surrounding the 2,228 metre peak of Mt. Kosciusko (about 0.001% of Australia's land area!). This small area supports species of plants that are endemic (unique to the area) and has rich, diverse and distinctive communities of wonderful plant life.

Within a few hours drive from Canberra, there are good ski resorts at Thredbo and Perisher Blue, and there are resorts in Victoria, further away. One of my favourite places is Mt Buffalo in Victoria, with its grand chalet dating from 1910.

The bombing in London makes everyone's comments on the Olympic victory (including mine) rather trivial by comparision.

Media reports include several near miss stories from survivors. My own such story relates to the hijacking on 4 December 1977 of Malaysia Airlines Flight 653 from Penang to Kuala Lumpur, a Boeing 737 aircraft (9M-MBD). The aircraft descended from an altitude of 21,000 feet to a few thousand feet before leveling off and apparently continuing on autopilot. It eventually plunged into a swamp 50 km southwest of Johor Baharu, some hundreds of kilometres beyond Kuala Lumpur. All 93 passengers and 7 crew were killed. Investigations later found that both pilots had been shot.

I left Penang for Kuala Lumpur on the same day. But at the last minute I decided to go by road and rail, so that I could see the sights on the way.

I find this picture of Father Michael Lee with one of his plants delightful. Gardening is one of the activities for the chidren cared for by the BanSongDong Sharing House.

Recently I wrote a quite long post about the Anglican Church of Korea. Australia's Anglican Board of Missions (which produced the picture) has supported Christian work in BanSong over many years. BanSongDong is a suburb of the large regional city of Pusan. The land is inferior to that of Pusan proper and infrastructure is poor. The community of 70,000 people lack good roads, cultural activities, medical services, welfare institutions and employment. "So in this place" ABM says "you can find isolated and ill elderly people, single parent families, school children without lunches and breakfast, runaway youth, unemployed people and the BanSongDong Sharing House."

Begun in the 1970's with the support of ABM, the Sharing House meets many needs -- food banks for the hungry, breakfast for factory workers, support for low income families, hospice care for the elderly and ill, free medical care for poor women, employment programs for the unemployed and more. Australians are now supporting the development an after school program for children with anti-social behaviour, learning difficulties and from low income families. This is a pioneering program in Korea.

ABM is also helping with a specialised program for children with learning disorders that often are the result of family dislocation or dysfunction. From reaching and helping this group of children, the Revd Michael Lee has the vision of beginning a new church with their families. Good food and nutrition helps with well being and improvement in behaviour. The tea drinking not only teaches social skills of etiquette and communication important in Korean culture but the tea is good for the children. The particular teas drunk assist with concentration, prevent tooth decay and improve overall well-being. There are also outings. Even though the children live close enough to the beach to smell the ocean, many have never been there.

London's victory in the contest for the 2012 Olympics brings back some reminiscences. At the time in 1993 when Sydney was awarded the 2000 Olympic Games, I was on board an Air France flight from Australia to London via Paris. When I eventually reached my accommodations in Notting Hill Gate, I was tired and jetlagged, but also hungry and thirsty. This being London, it didn't take long to find a pub, the Walmer Castle. The first person I met, the barman, proclaimed himself an Aussie, said that Sydney had won, that he was soon to return home, and asked whether I wanted to buy his Drizabone.

Your #1 Match: INFJ

The Protector You live your life with integrity, originality, vision, and creativity. Independent and stubborn, you rarely stray from your vision -- no matter what it is. You are an excellent listener, with almost infinite patience. You have complex, deep feelings, and you take great care to express them. You would make a great photographer, alternative medicine guru, or teacher.

Your #2 Match: INTJ

The Scientist You have a head for ideas -- and you are good at improving systems. Logical and strategic, you prefer for everything in your life to be organized. You tend to be a bit skeptical. You're both critical of yourself and of others. Independent and stubborn, you tend to only befriend those who are a lot like you. You would make an excellent scientist, engineer, or programmer.

Your #3 Match: ISFJ

The Nurturer You have a strong need to belong, and you very loyal. A good listener, you excell at helping others in practical ways. In your spare time, you enjoy engaging your senses through art, cooking, and music. You find it easy to be devoted to one person, who you do special things for. You would make a good interior designer, chef, or child psychologist.

Your #4 Match: ISTJ

The Duty Fulfiller You are responsible, reliable, and hardworking -- you get the job done. You prefer productive hobbies, like woodworking or knittings. Quiet and serious, you are well prepared for whatever life hands you. Conservative and down-to-earth, you hardly ever do anything crazy. You would make a great business executive, accountant, or lawyer.

Your #5 Match: INFP

The Idealist You are creative with a great imagination, living in your own inner world. Open minded and accepting, you strive for harmony in your important relationships. It takes a long time for people to get to know you. You are hesitant to let people get close. But once you care for someone, you do everything you can to help them grow and develop. You would make an excellent writer, psychologist, or artist.

From Giles Goddard of InclusiveChurch.net

The result of the vote at the Anglican Consultative Council in Nottingham on Wed 22nd June represents a serious challenge to the future of the Anglican Church. It is vital that those who celebrate the breadth and depth of the Anglican tradition begin to take seriously the threat to the future of our church.

St Paul says in the first letter to the Corinthians 'Now the body is not made up of one part, but of many . . . The eye cannot say to the hand, "I do not need you." ' It is clear that the continued exclusion of the Episcopal Church of the USA and the Anglican Church of Canada, in spite of their open, honest and generous responses to the Windsor Report and the Primates' request is a contradiction of the words of St Paul.

The preface to the Book of Common Prayer, published in 1662, opens with the words "It hath ever been the wisdom of the Church of England to keep the mean between two extremes." The Church has lived with diversity and difference since its foundation. Anglicans from a vast breadth of theological and liturgical understandings have respected one another's right to be members. The path has not always been easy but the Church has held together over nearly five centuries.

The Anglican Church has made a unique contribution to Christian witness. We have always been Catholic and Reformed, standing between the extreme certainties which caused such terror and suffering in the Reformation era. We are commtted to maintaining the value of that inheritance. We are not surprised when something that has so much within it that works for good and redemption is under attack.

But this Church that we love is now under threat. The Gospel of broad and generous inclusion is being undermined by a dangerously monochrome interpretation of scripture.

The loss of our voice; the change in our ecclesiology; the equating of our Anglican tradition with other hard-line, protestant, or neo-conservative churches would be a serious and permanent diminishing of Christian witness to the world.

InclusiveChurch and its thirteen partner organisations in the Church of England have welcomed the process of reception of the Windsor Report and the institution of the "Listening process" agreed by the Anglican Consultative Council. We are working closely with other groups within the Anglican Commuion, both in the UK and abroad. We are committed to this so that we can try to ensure that the ecclesiology of the Anglican Communion is not subverted.

The decision taken at the ACC meeting in Nottingham to include all the Primates as full members of the Anglican Consultative Council sets an alarming precedent. There is a real possibility of imposed doctrinal and theological positions from a conservative grouping.

We cannot risk becoming a church where the Primates can equate homosexuality with bestiality; or where there is permanent subjugation of women and institutionalised inequality; or where genuine debate and searching are replaced by an imposed orthodoxy.

We are aware that the Church faces very different challenges around the world, and we have no wish to exclude from the church those who have a different interpretation of the Gospel. But for the sake of the Church we repeat clearly that we are committed to finding ways to ensure that the diversity of the Anglican Communion continues to be celebrated and encouraged.

InclusiveChurch deeply regrets the continued exclusion of ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada from full participation in the life of the Anglican Communion. We express our full support for their respect for the Anglican Communion and their membership of it.

We believe that the Gospel witness we offer must continue to grow and to that end we call on all members of our Communion to become aware of the risks we are facing. 'The eye cannot say to the hand - "I do not need you." '

Dr Muriel Porter, former Australian lay delegate to the Anglican Consultative Council writes in writes in The Age (29 June 2005) of "A church that seems beyond healing". She takes not of the considerable long term consequences of the decision to discipline the North American branches of the Anglican church.

Conservative Anglicans around the world must be jubilant. Their long-term strategy of isolating the liberal North American Anglican churches from the mainstream Anglican communion has paid off. [. . . ] Ironically, the harsh decision was only possible because the North Americans had voluntarily removed themselves from the vote. [. . .] So their generosity in the face of the conservatives' demands has blown up in their faces.

[. . .] The primates' initial request for the American withdrawal was ostensibly to allow some breathing space in the Anglican Communion [. . .] It seems likely that the requested withdrawal had a much more sinister motive. Instead of giving breathing space, it ruthlessly cut off the oxygen supply to an important segment of the international church. And it cleared the way for conservatives to dominate and polarise the Anglican decision-making body, which until now had been both moderate and irenic [aimed at peace].

The Anglican Consultative Council [. . .] is the legal entity for the international church and the only forum in which Anglican lay people can participate in decision-making. It has also been the place where the voice of women, and particularly women clergy, could be heard.

Without the North Americans there are just two women priests (including one Australian), no women bishops, and only 11 laywomen.

The close vote did not just endorse the banishment of the North Americans. It also explicitly endorsed the hardline stance against homosexuality that has been the cause of all the trouble.

Well, at least presenting cause. The essential divisions are much deeper

The loss of the North Americans in the council's deliberations is significant not just because of their potential votes. They have always brought an important cultural perspective to the international church, as well as a level of energy and confidence not readily found among other first-world Anglicans.

In particular, their absence has allowed the ultra-conservative African churches to dominate the council. [. . .]. Without support from the Anglican Consultative Council - and ironically, without their own voting power - the North Americans will find it hard to be accepted back into the Anglican fold. Their permanent exclusion is now a real possibility, and with it, the dismantling of the Anglican communion. And all because they refuse to accept that the conservative, even fundamentalist, viewpoint on homosexuality is the only respectable Christian position.

Make no mistake, their sidelining has significant implications for other important matters in what might be termed "cultural Christianity". Watch for the same determined undermining of women clergy as the conservatives become more bold. And even the reduction of the lay voice.

This has already happened as the thirty plus primates have been added to the membership of the Council.

Conservative churches are inevitably hierarchical, clerical and male-dominated. Not just gay people will be the victims of the ingenious repositioning of the Anglican communion that has happened this week.

On 30 June, the Spanish Parliament voted to legalise same-sex marriages. Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero made a remarkable speech in which he said that the changes were for "a more decent society, because a decent society is one that does not humiliate its members." Here are some excerpts, translated by Rex Wockner and quoted by Doug Ireland. Sadly, these are not words I expect to hear from the leader of either of Australia's main political parties.

We are not legislating, honourable members, for people far away and not known by us. We are enlarging the opportunity for happiness to our neighbors, our co-workers, our friends and, our families: at the same time we are making a more decent society, because a decent society is one that does not humiliate its members.

In the poem The Family, our [gay] poet Luis Cernuda was sorry because, "How does man live in denial in vain / by giving rules that prohibit and condemn?"

Today, the Spanish society answers to a group of people who, during many years have, been humiliated, whose rights have been ignored, whose dignity has been offended, their identity denied, and their liberty oppressed. Today the Spanish society grants them the respect they deserve, recognizes their rights, restores their dignity, affirms their identity, and restores their liberty.

It is true that they are only a minority, but their triumph is everyone's triumph. It is also the triumph of those who oppose this law, even though they do not know this yet: because it is the triumph of Liberty. Their victory makes all of us (even those who oppose the law) better people, it makes our society better. Honourable members, there is no damage to marriage or to the concept of family in allowing two people of the same sex to get married. On the contrary, what happens is this class of Spanish citizens get the potential to organize their lives with the rights and privileges of marriage and family. There is no danger to the institution of marriage, but precisely the opposite: this law enhances and respects marriage.

Today, conscious that some people and institutions are in profound disagreement with this change in our civil law, I wish to express that, like other reforms to the marriage code that preceded this one, this law will generate no evil, that its only consequence will be the avoiding of senseless suffering of decent human beings. A society that avoids senseless suffering of decent human beings is a better society.

With the approval of this Bill, our country takes another step in the path of liberty and tolerance that was begun by the democratic change of government. Our children will look at us incredulously if we tell them that many years ago, our mothers had less rights than our fathers, or if we tell them that people had to stay married against their will even though they were unable to share their lives. Today we can offer them a beautiful lesson: every right gained, each access to liberty has been the result of the struggle and sacrifice of many people that deserve our recognition and praise.

Today we demonstrate with this Bill that societies can better themselves and can cross barriers and create tolerance by putting a stop to the unhappiness and humiliation of some of our citizens. Today, for many of our countrymen, comes the day predicted by Kavafis [the great Greek gay poet] a century ago:

Later 'twas said of the most perfect society
someone else, made like me
certainly will come out and act freely.

---

Speech by Prime Minister Mr Paul Martin in the Canadian Parliament on 16 February 2005, introducting legislation to reinforce the legality of same-sex marriages throughout Canada. The legislation has now, at length, been passed.

I rise in support of a Canada in which liberties are safeguarded, rights are protected and the people of this land are treated as equals under the law. [. . .]

This bill protects minority rights. This bill affirms the Charter guarantee of religious freedom. It is that straightforward, and it is that important. And that is why I stand today before members here and before the people of this country to say: I believe in, and I will fight for, the Charter of Rights. I believe in, and I will fight for, a Canada that respects the foresight and vision of those who created and entrenched the Charter. I believe in, and I will fight for, a future in which generations of Canadians to come, Canadians born here and abroad, will have the opportunity to value the Charter as we do today -- as an essential pillar of our democratic freedoms. [. . . ]

We will be influenced by our faith but we also have an obligation to take the widest perspective -- to recognize that one of the great strengths of Canada is its respect for the rights of each and every individual, to understand that we must not shrink from the need to reaffirm the rights and responsibilities of Canadians in an evolving society. [. . .]

We embrace freedom and equality in theory. We must also embrace them in fact.

[T]here are some who oppose this legislation who would have the government use the 'notwithstanding' clause in the Charter of Rights to override the courts and reinstate the traditional definition of marriage. And really, this is the fundamental issue here. [. . . ]

Ultimately, there is only one issue before this House in this debate. For most Canadians, in most parts of our country, same-sex marriage is already the law of the land. Thus, the issue is not whether rights are to be granted. The issue is whether rights that have been granted are to be taken away. [. . . ]

This question does not demand rhetoric. It demands clarity. There are only two legitimate answers -- yes or no. Not the demagoguery we have heard, not the dodging, the flawed reasoning, the false options. Just yes or no. Will you take away a right as guaranteed under the Charter? I, for one, will answer that question. I will answer it clearly. I will say no. [. . .]

The Charter is a living document, the heartbeat of our Constitution. It is also a proclamation. It declares that as Canadians, we live under a progressive and inclusive set of fundamental beliefs about the value of the individual. It declares that we all are lessened when any one of us is denied a fundamental right. [. . .]

Let us never forget that one of the reasons that Canada is such a vibrant nation, so diverse, so rich in the many cultures and races of the world, is that immigrants who come here -- as was the case with the ancestors of many of us in this chamber -- feel free and are free to practice their religion, follow their faith, live as they want to live. No homogenous system of beliefs is imposed on them.

When we as a nation protect minority rights, we are protecting our multicultural nature. We are reinforcing the Canada we value. We are saying, proudly and unflinchingly, that defending rights -- not just those that happen to apply to us, not just that everyone approves of, but all fundamental rights -- is at the very soul of what it means to be a Canadian.

This is a vital aspect of the values we hold dear and strive to pass on to others in the world who are embattled, who endure tyranny, whose freedoms are curtailed, whose rights are violated. [. . .]

We have not been free from discrimination, bias, unfairness. There have been blatant inequalities. [. . .] Over time, perspectives changed. We evolved, we grew, and our laws evolved and grew with us. That is as it should be. Our laws must reflect equality not as we understood it a century or even a decade ago, but as we understand it today. [. . .]

The people of Canada have worked hard to build a country that opens its doors to include all, regardless of their differences; a country that respects all, regardless of their differences; a country that demands equality for all, regardless of their differences. If we do not step forward, then we step back. If we do not protect a right, then we deny it. Together as a nation, together as Canadians: Let us step forward.