Finally, a Marriage Destroyed by Same-Sex Marriage

For years I’ve been challenging those who says gay marriage is going to destroy marriage to find just one example of an actual marriage that will be destroyed by letting gay people do it. Well they’ve finally found one, an Australian couple who says they’ll get divorced if those dirty gay people get to join up too.

MY wife and I just celebrated our 10-year anniversary. But later this year, we may be getting a divorce.

The reason has nothing to do with the state of our marriage. We were married at 21 after being high-school sweethearts for several years before that.

In fact, my wife is the only woman I have ever loved, the mother of our children, my perfect match.

You see, after our divorce, we’ll continue to live together, hopefully for another 50 years. And, God willing, we’ll have more children. We’ll also continue to refer to each other as “husband” and “wife” and consider ourselves married by the Church and before God.

So why do this? It will certainly complicate our lives as we try to explain our marital status on the sidelines during Saturday sport. The reason, however, is that, as Christians, we believe marriage is not a human invention.

Our view is that marriage is a fundamental order of creation. Part of God’s intimate story for human history. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman before a community in the sight of God. And the marriage of any couple is important to God regardless of whether that couple recognises God’s involvement or authority in it.

My wife and I, as a matter of conscience, refuse to recognise the government’s regulation of marriage if its definition includes the solemnisation of same sex couples…

When we signed that official-looking marriage certificate 10 years ago at Tuggeranong Baptist Church, we understood that the state was endorsing marriage, as currently defined, as the fundamental social institution – with all that this implied.

But if this is no longer the case, then we no longer wish to be associated with this new definition. Marriage is sacred and what is truly “marriage” will only ever be what it has always been.

Good for you. But here’s a question: Why would anyone give a shit? Why should anyone care? Do you think this is going to stop gay people from getting married? Do you think people are going to think “OMG, these two random people I’ve never met are going to do something really stupid if we let gay people get married so we better not do that”? Get a grip.

"Exactly. There is zero reason to expect anything else."

Trump Wars 4: A New Hope
"But c'mon. Time and time again when the media has been "oh he's so presidential!" ..."

Trump Wars 4: A New Hope
"Wishful thinking on the part of McConnell and the GOP. Trump will be there for ..."

McConnell Thinks Trump May Be Gone ..."
"If they want statutes and memorials to commemorate the Civil War, then why not a ..."

Barton’s Bizarre Diatribe on Confederate Statues
Follow Us!
POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • John Pieret

    It would be much better for you and, particularly, your children if you just held your breath until you turn blue … and as effective.

  • alanb
  • Glenn E Ross

    So they will forego the legal benefits of a secular marriage because the government doesn’t specifically endorse their religious version of marriage. How many legal niceties will they deny themselves and their children to make a meaningless point?

    As has been said before, “the stupid, it burns.”

  • dingojack

    My favourite reaction to the news.

    And actually – there’s a hitch (so to speak, and wouldn’t yaknowit!)

    Dingo.

  • Childermass

    I was sort of hoping Australia had common-law marriage so that they would have to break up to stay perpetually unmarried. But Australia does not have it as such, but it does have something rather similar, de facto relationships.

  • dingojack

    Note these upright Christians aren’t prepared to break some random rule in Deuteronomy, but the whole ‘false witness’ thingy from the big ten – meh, no problemo!

    Proverbs 19:5

    Dingo

  • Synfandel

    Our view is that marriage is a fundamental order of creation. Part of God’s intimate story for human history.

    Anyone have the slightest idea what any of that means?

    Dingo, I raise my glass to “local couple Brett and Harry”. That’s brilliant!

  • eric

    Dingo, I was thinking about the exact irony of your second link when I read this. The people who oppose SSM are the same people who oppose no-fault divorce. Wouldn’t it be funny of the same religiously conservative philosophy that they hold required one of this couple to sleep with someone else or live elsewhere for a year before they were allowed to go through with their plan?

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Oh no! Not Bruce and Sheila!

  • dingojack

    Childermass – see the second link I provided:

    “But the Family Law Act states that an application for divorce will only be considered if the parties had separated and lived separately for a continuous period of at least 12 months.

    Family lawyer Denis Farrar said the court also needs to be satisfied that there is no reasonable likelihood of cohabitation being resumed.”

    Dingo

  • lldayo

    Soooo…they had no problem with atheists getting married?

  • Hoosier X

    This sounds like a rejected Monty Python sketch.

  • dingojack

    With over 70%+ approval for SSM, I don’t see this ‘threat’ getting a lot of traction somehow…

    Dingo

  • raven

    Xians lie a lot.

    I doubt if they will do it.

    And if they do, most likely in a few years, they will realize that no one really gave a rat’s ass what they do and say. And get married again.

    PS Don’t let the screen door hit your ass on the way out of our society.

    It will certainly complicate our lives as we try to explain our marital status on the sidelines during Saturday sport.

    WTH!!! Who cares or talks about their marital status during a sports game anyway? These people not only aren’t very bright, they must terminally bore everyone they meet. Xians, boring everyone since 33 CE.

  • dingojack

    Australian comic/commentator Dave Hughes tweeted in response:

    Be thankful if gay marriage forces you to divorce, you’re married to a moron.”

    Harsh – but fair!

    Dingo

  • https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=14822869 Paul Chapman

    Australia doesn’t have anything in its constitution prohibiting laws that respect an establishment of religion, does it? This guy clearly considers marriage to be an establishment of religion, and that is his prerogative.

    Nonetheless, I wish there were some consensus, or at least more debate, as to whether marriage is or is not an establishment of religion.

  • Sastra

    But here’s a question: Why would anyone give a shit? Why should anyone care?

    My guess is that the intended audience for this stunt is 1.) fellow Christians and 2.) God. Within their own subculture, this divorce would be seen as a particularly impressive sign of group commitment and ideological purity, also known as “holier than thou.” As for God, watching people punch themselves in the face to display their faith and submission to His authority is one of His very favorite pastimes.

    So why do this? It will certainly complicate our lives as we try to explain our marital status on the sidelines during Saturday sport.

    Oh, I call b.s. on that. These situations won’t “complicate” your lives, they will provide you with a welcome forum for you to spout off your religious piety to any and all in earshot range. The fact that you bring THIS “problem” up instead of more serious problems like inheritance and the right to make decisions for the sick and dying shows exactly how much you’re salivating over the painful possibility that you will need to explain your stupid decision over and over and over again to anyone who will listen. Please.

  • Pianoman, Church of the Golden Retriever

    OK, one side says “this is the kind of stupid christians are known for” and the other side wonders “The Onion?”

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    “Hurray! The divorce came through!”

    “Yeah, this’ll show those homos!”

    “Let’s celebrate with some sanctity-of-marriage-bound, PIV interco…oh. Shit.”

    “We really didn’t think this through.’

    “I never thought our attempt to spite other people would effect us negatively.”

  • frankgturner

    @ raven

    I will be more than happy to provide them with you real musculature from a rodent if they do desire it and are willing to pay.

    .

    Of course this is largely due to my belief that they are turning brownish green and starting to drink from being at their maximum capacity for fecal matter.

    .

    The only reason I DO care is that I find it hilarious.

  • frankgturner

    Damn “rectal”

    Surprised this spell checker corrected that

  • flatlander100

    Go for it! Divorce and shack up. It’s the Christian thing to do.

  • gshelley

    It will certainly complicate our lives as we try to explain our marital status on the sidelines during Saturday sport. The reason, however, is that, as Christians, we believe marriage is not a human invention.

    How much does it complicate things to say “yes, we are rabid bigots and we decided we didn’t want to be part of the marriage institution if gay people were allowed to join”

  • scienceavenger

    I pledge to stay married until this couple gets remarried. That’ll show em!

  • rietpluim

    You see, after our divorce, we’ll continue to live together, hopefully for another 50 years. And, God willing, we’ll have more children. We’ll also continue to refer to each other as “husband” and “wife” and consider ourselves married by the Church and before God.

    So from their point of view, they’re not really divorcing.

    Xians. Even their threats are empty lies.

  • dhall

    “Look, honey, we’re in the news, and all around the world! Crap; now I guess we’ll have to follow through on our threat. You have to move out then; I’ll just stay here in the house we both paid for. ‘Kay? After all, it’s for gawd.”

    Dolts.

  • eric

    I wish there were some consensus, or at least more debate, as to whether marriage is or is not an establishment of religion.

    Well, I am not a consensus of more than one, but given that many different cultures practice it including people of many religions and none, I would say no, at this time it is not an establishment of religion. With the following caveats/notes:

    1. In western countries, one could argue it started out as an establishment of religion, even if it isn’t now. I’m not so sure about this, but if someone wanted to make this argument, I’d listen. Though I bet even under the historically hard core Christian theocracies (such as Spain in the 1500s), they still accepted that non-Christians could get married.

    2. Some state-based ancillary rules (like: you must get a “celebrant” to sign the certificate) could, in some cases, be considered an establishment, depending on what the legal requirement is.

    3. Attempts to limit legal marriage to unions only recognized by specific religious sects (such as rules against SSM, rules against divorcees remarrying, rules against sect-members marrying infidels) are establishment problems. Except for the first one, these are not US problems but they exist in other countries.

  • Hoosier X

    Where’s dukedog?

    He’s had plenty of time to go to the sophistry warehouse and find a few ways to blame this on Democrats or Malthusians or Darwinists.

  • eric

    @17: my guess is their “audience” is Gofundme.com. You watch, the next announcement from this pair will be “please help make our plan successful, with only a small donation needed to….”

  • http://gregorylynn.net/ gregorylynn

    It would be funny as shit if they were given this divorce then one of them got sick and was denied visiting rights and died and the surviving spouse had to go through great lengths to prove that were a couple.

  • Matrim

    The reason, however, is that, as Christians, we believe marriage is not a human invention.

    In which case, why would you support governmental marriage at all? It was just as much an artifice before SSM as it will be after.

  • grumpyoldfart

    They will give up the idea as soon as they realize that they will lose their tax concessions.

  • http://www.facebook.com/den.wilson d.c.wilson

    Anyone else see this as just a fundraising scheme for his organization?

    I’ll bet in a few months, they’ll announce that because of the “outpouring of support from the Christian community” they’ve decided to stay together after all.

  • howardhershey

    They would make a perfect couple for pointing out the distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage. They started out by doing both a civil and religious marriage, thereby gaining certain legal rights, responsibilities, and benefits, Now they will divorce and give up the legal rights, responsibilities, and benefits of civil marriage while retaining their ‘religious’ marriage, just like Warren Jeffs and other cultists and bigamists that ‘religiously’ marry multiple wives and/or underage girls because such marriages are not sanctioned by the state (and, often, are considered crimes). And. of course, many people have ‘civil’ marriages without having a ‘religious’ marriage. Most people have both a religious ceremony of marriage, which confers no legal rights, responsibilities, or benefits and a civil marriage, which does.

  • frankgturner

    If the government supported secular baptism, could we get a Xtian group’s members to stop attending via the same reasoning?

    .

    Hey get your local atheist group to start doing secular baptisms!

  • mildlymagnificent

    Nonetheless, I wish there were some consensus, or at least more debate, as to whether marriage is or is not an establishment of religion.

    Well, we’re in trouble then. We were married by a friend 37 years ago, a ‘civil celebrant’ who just happened to be president of the local Atheist Society at the time.

    As far as I know, in England at least, don’t know about the rest of the west, marriage was a private agreement. It only needed to be public when there was property or feudal/monarchical rights at stake. The church managed to get in first with the control of marriage and family at a time when there was no competing bureaucracy or governmental system. Pretty easy when you’ve got more or less exclusive control of literacy and record keeping.

    There’s a nice overview of marriage laws in The Subversive Family: An Alternative History of Love and Marriage by Ferdinand Mount.

  • sigurd jorsalfar

    I’m not familiar with Australian law but one of the funny things about this (there are many) is that they might not be able to get a divorce if they don’t split up for a while or commit some other marital infidelity in order to create the grounds for a divorce. And then there are the legal fees. So yeah good luck with that, Australian Christian couple.

  • dangerousbeans

    their brother published an attempted defense of their sillyness: http://hercanberra.com.au/cppeople/an-open-response-to-nick-jensen-article/

    it’s full of garbage.

    Canberra is a pretty queer friendly place (in my experience), so it wouldn’t surprise me if they copped some negative reactions from it. on the other hand they are members of the Australian Christian Lobby, so they are probably living in an insular bubble around here.

  • http://www.ranum.com Marcus Ranum

    How is it respecting marriage to choose to end yours just to make a shabby point?

  • http://thecanberracook.blogspot.com Alethea Kuiper-Belt
  • dingojack

    Paul Chapman – Constitutionally established religion(s) aren’t relevant. Marriage isn’t defined by the Constitution, it’s defined by the Marriage Act.

    In other words – you can have a religiously defined wedding where all the participant get naked, roller skate around the bottom of an empty pool while chanting the prices of piscines at various supermarkets, if you want to. From the government’s point of view all the legal rights and responsibilities flow from signing the legal contract – and that’s all – anything else is up to you and nothing to do with the government. The government isn’t in the marriage business, it’s merely the underwriter of the legal agreement between the two parties. (AIUI).

    Dingo

  • Ichthyic

    How is it respecting marriage to choose to end yours just to make a shabby point?

    As Modus alluded to…

    it is very often the case that these authoritarian xians get off on pure spite.

    they simply don’t give a shit if they cut their own noses off in the process.

  • johnhodges

    FYI I recall, from the movie “Ghandi”, that in the early 1900’s in South Africa, which was a British possession at the time, there was a proposal that the law should recognize Christian marriages only. This upset the Hindus, because it implied “All of your wives and mothers are whores, and every man here is a bastard.”

  • Anna Elizabeth

    @Alethia #40 – Thank you for linking that, I love that this couple’s friends and acquaintances are making this statement. :)

  • Morgan

    They would make a perfect couple for pointing out the distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage.

    And yet they seem completely oblivious to this. They “believe marriage is not a human invention”, but are specifically cutting themselves off from the human laws governing it while insisting they’re still really married in the eyes of god.

  • thinkingman

    They must really believe in the sanctity of marriage to throw it away so easily. Also what an insult to their god and his/her marriage ideas. On top of that, if they intend to have more children would they not be having sex out of wedlock?

  • dingojack

    What Moron & wife aren’t divorcing over the marriage of these two?

    :) Dingo