Tasmanian Times

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Economy

Complaint against Catholic anti-equality booklet, “Don’t Mess with Marriage”, to be lodged today

Advocate says booklet offends and humiliates same-sex couples & their children

Hobart rights activist, Martine Delaney, is today lodging a complaint with the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, against Archbishop Julian Porteous and the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference.

The complaint relates to a booklet, ” Don’t Mess with Marriage”, authorised by the Bishops Conference and distributed throughout Catholic schools in recent months.

Ms Delaney says the booklet, which claims to advise all Australians of the Church’s reasons for opposing same-sex marriage, pays lip service to respecting same-sex-attracted Australians, but actually sends out very negative messages about them.

“Despite the assertion it’s respectful, this booklet says same-sex partners don’t deserve equal recognition, same-sex-attracted people are not ‘whole’ people and the children of same-sex partners are not ‘healthy'”, Ms Delaney said.

“By spreading this message, the Church does immeasurable harm to the wellbeing of same-sex couples and their families across Tasmania and the nation – particularly those who are students, teachers or parents within the Catholic education system.”

Ms Delaney said the booklet breaches section 17 of the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act which prohibits offence and humiliation on the grounds of sexual orientation.

She added, “The Church has every right to freedom of speech and religion, but it must exercise these rights responsibly, and within the law, which in this case it hasn’t.”

“If the Church believes it has acted lawfully, it should welcome my complaint as an opportunity to vindicate itself.”

Ms. Delaney will be lodging her complaint at 10.30am today, Monday September 28th.

Background information taken from the complaint follows here:

I believe statements in the booklet “Don’t Mess With Marriage” are in clear breach of section 17 of the Anti-Discrimination Act. They offend, humiliate and insult same-sex attracted people and the children of same-sex partners.

These breaches include –

1. Same-sex relationships are friendships

On page 9, the booklet refers to “same-sex friendships” as distinct to the relationship between a man and a woman. The reference to “friends” is repeated on page 10.

This is deeply offensive, humiliating and insulting to same-sex attracted people, because it says our relationships are devoid and incapable of the depth of love, intimacy, commitment and personal fulfilment to be found in a conjugal union.

This is not to demean friendship. Obviously, friendship is also important to our personal fulfilment. It can also be an important aspect of conjugal love. But friendship is not the same as this love. In the past, the term “friendship” has been misapplied to same-sex unions as a way to diminish them. Phrases such as “they are just friends”, or “she is survived by her long-time friend”, have been deployed countless times to hide, deny and demean the true nature of same-sex relationships.

Worst of all, this misrepresentation of same-sex unions as “friendships” sends a deeply damaging message to young same-sex attracted people, that any aspiration to a loving, lifelong conjugal union – an aspiration they share with every other human being – ought, and will, never be fulfilled. This denial of a fulfilling future is summed up in the perception that same-sex attracted people will “grow old and die alone”.

I can think of few more negative and demoralising messages than to be told you have no hope of a lifelong, loving union. It is far worse than to be called a derogatory term based on your sexuality or gender identity. Hate can be endured if there is the prospect of true love. Without any hope of such love, life can become unendurable.

2. Same-sex attracted people are not whole

On page 9, the booklet says the “complementarity” of men and women means the union of a man and a woman in marriage “makes them whole”. This obviously implies same-sex attracted people can never be whole people, especially when viewed in the light of the booklet’s main message – that they should not be able to marry.

This is deeply offensive, humiliating and insulting to same-sex attracted people because it says we, and our relationships, are inherently and irredeemably defective and second rate. It effectively says we are less human and less entitled to the respect every human being deserves. If the booklet said, unlike their white counterparts, mixed-race couples were not capable of wholeness, it would be considered deeply racist and there would be an outcry. The booklet’s claim about the incapacity of same-sex attracted people to be whole is equally offensive.

Again, this is far worse than if the booklet slurred or mocked same-sex attracted people. Slurs and mockery do not stick, if they target people already regarded as equal in dignity and humanity. Only when the humanity of a minority has been diminished, as the booklet diminishes the humanity of same-sex attracted people, do slurs and mockery begin to bite.

3. The children of same-sex couples are not healthy or virtuous

The booklet states marriage is “the nursery of healthy, well rounded virtuous citizens” (p10). It also says allowing same-sex couples to marry (which in the view of the booklet is synonymous with us having children) will “mess with kids” and “hurt” young people (p13).

It appears to base this claim on the dubious (and grammatically incorrect) statement that “there are countless reliable studies that suggest that mothers and fathers enhance – and their absence impede – child development in different ways” (p13).

These statements are offensive, humiliating and insulting to the children of same-sex couples, because together they say these children are not as healthy, virtuous or as well developed as other children, simply because of the gender of their parents.

Further, use of the phrase “messing with kids” is incredibly offensive. The booklet clearly states it is intended for all Australians. And, right across Australian society, this phrase, “messing with kids”, is commonly used to discuss and imply the sexual abuse of children. Its use here appears to be an insidious attempt to offend, humiliate and insult the standing of all same-sex couples raising children.

4. Undermining human existence

The booklet states that marriage is “fundamental good, a foundation of human existence”, associated with “social stability” (p10).

It also says allowing same-sex couples to marry will “destabilise marriage” (p7) and “undermine the common good” (p7).

The meaning is clear: same-sex attracted people, our relationships and our aspiration to be treated equally are inimical to all that is good, and inherently threatening, not just to Catholic doctrine, but to the very fabric and future of humanity.

This goes further than offending, humiliating and insulting us. It even goes further than dehumanising us. It demonises us.

4. The cumulative effect of the above statements

On page 5 the booklet says every person “has great dignity and worth” and that same-sex attracted people “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity”.

Yet, the statements I outline above do exactly the opposite. Taken together, they say same-sex attracted people are not fully human, our relationships are defective, our children are unhealthy, and the moment we step outside the straightjacket of Catholic dogma we are a threat to humanity.

The cumulative effect of this message is offensive, humiliating and insulting to any same-sex-attracted people – and, equally so to their families and friends. In particular, the consequences of this message can be hugely detrimental to members of these cohorts who are staff or students in Catholic schools, or students in these schools who have parents in same-sex relationships. For all these people, the message is being promulgated within communities which play an enormously powerful and influential role in their lives.

No prejudice I have ever experienced is more damaging than that. If this doesn’t breach section 17, nothing does.

In light of the above, I would ask Archbishop Julian Porteous, and the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, be required to carry out the remedies proposed in this complaint.

Remedies sought

To resolve this complaint, I would like the Catholic Church in Tasmania to implement a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) awareness program for all staff and students within the Catholic Education system.

I would also ask the Catholic Archbishop of Hobart, and the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, to issue a public apology for their actions in distributing the booklet, “Don’t Mess with Marriage”.

• In response to criticism of the booklet, including criticisms mentioned above, representatives of the Catholic Church have put forward a number of defences in the course of public debate. Below are a number of such defences and my response to them.

1. Respect

Defenders of the booklet have repeatedly claimed it shows respect for same-sex attracted people and our relationships. But, as noted above, the booklet only states it is respectful. The overall message in the booklet is exactly the opposite. It is not enough declare one’s belief in human dignity, one must demonstrate it in one’s actions.

2. Freedom of speech

Defenders of the booklet have said criticism of the booklet, and any anti-discrimination complaints against it, are a breach of the right of free speech. I am a strong believer in freedom of speech. But I also believe that with every right comes a concomitant responsibility not to abuse this right by harming others. In this case, the Catholic Church’s responsibility is not to abuse its freedom of speech to harm vulnerable same-sex attracted people and our family members. Just as the Catholic Church has freedom of speech, so same-sex attracted young people have the right to a safe and supportive school environment free from the prejudice, stigma, discrimination and bullying the booklet could foster. These rival freedoms must be balanced. Part of the equation is the relative power of those concerned. Young same-sex attracted people are far less powerful, and far less able to have their views heard, than bishops. Their freedom deserves every protection the law can offer.

3. Freedom of religion

Defenders of the booklet also say any criticism of it, or complaints against it, are a breach of freedom of religion. I believe strongly in religious freedom, in its original sense of being free from coercion into a particular religious belief or practice. But, like freedom of speech, freedom of religion is not absolute. In a secular, plural, democratic society governed by civil law, religious freedom must sometimes give way to law. In this case, the law says there should be no offence or humiliation on the grounds of sexual orientation etc. I am troubled that some defenders of the booklet seem to believe their freedom of religion means they should be allowed to ignore this law. If they don’t agree with the law, they should call for it to be changed. If they do not believe the booklet violates the law, they should welcome the opportunity for vindication presented by complaints against it. But if they actually believe they can disregard laws they don’t like, their offence against our society runs far deeper than that occasioned by this booklet.

4. Statement of belief and appeal to a general audience

Another defence of the booklet is that it is a statement of Catholic belief to an audience of Catholics and should not be judged by non-Catholic standards. However, it’s clear, at several points, the booklet seeks to make statements of fact, drawing on questionable science to do so. It is also clearly addressed to a general Australian audience, not just Catholics – as stated on the cover.

For example, the booklet states as fact – and not a point of religious belief – that same-sex relationships are not comparable to heterosexual marriages. It declares,

“Same-sex friendships are of a very different kind: to treat them as the same does a grave injustice to both kinds … and ignores the particular values that real marriages serve.” (p7)

In the chapter entitled, “The importance of mothers and fathers”, the booklet also sets out to tell members of the church, as well as all other Australians, that “messing with marriage” is also “messing with kids”. (p11) This is offered as an apparent statement of fact, rather than belief, and followed by,

“It is gravely unjust to them.” (ibid)

The booklet, in this same chapter, implies same-sex parents are inferior to heterosexual couples at raising children, that “a further tearing away at the traditional understanding of marriage and family will only hurt more people …” (ibid). At another point on p11, it attempts to add weight to this statement, by claiming,

“… sociological research, as well as the long experience of Church and society, attests to the importance for children of having, as far as possible, both a mother and father.”

Without referring to research material at this point in the process, this is obviously a moot point. It also is offered, again, as a statement of fact – not as a belief. Same-sex couples have been, and continue, raising children. I would argue there is a very divided opinion, within society, on this issue. In addition, much recent sociological research would suggest children in same-sex-headed families fare as well as those raised by heterosexual couples. In fact, some recent studies show these children are more rounded and actually fare better than counterparts growing up with heterosexual parents.

The booklet is wrong to portray these blunt, highly debatable, statements as fact. Considering the conflicting evidence, it can only be viewed as the Church attempting to tell its audience – all of Australia – same-sex couples “hurt” people, children, by becoming parents.

Given the booklet’s pretence to factuality, and its appeal to a non-Catholic audience, it is important the legality of its statements is judged by broad community standards and not just the standards of bishops.

Mrs Roslyn Phillips: Archbishop attacked for Christian teaching: the new ‘tolerance’?

• Download, read for yourself: Same Sex Parented Families in Australia …

Same_Sex_Parented_Families_in_Australia.pdf

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]
28 Comments

28 Comments

  1. Julia

    November 22, 2015 at 1:44 am

    @Big G. The kumbaya crowd really? Perhaps I should refer to the right as the “prayer circle crowd” or the “hymn crowd.” There is nothing “intolerant” about calling out and opposing the promotion of intolerance. Tolerance has never meant allowing discrimination or vilification.

  2. Lynne Newington

    November 18, 2015 at 1:19 pm

    #26 Good for you Joshua, but thank goodness, most Catholic parents these days won’t be dictated to by a hypocrital institution or suffer discrimination against themselves and their children; that you appear to be content with the corrupt status quo…….
    Now don’t insult me by saying it’s built on human frailities…..you or renowned exorcist Archbishop Julian Porteous blaming satan for every evil instead of encouraging the [vulnerable] faithful [and not so vulnerable clergy and friars] to take responsibility for their own deeds.

  3. TV Resident

    November 18, 2015 at 12:29 pm

    joshua clearwater….In my opinion ALL religious schools should be banned. Their reputation stinks to high heaven with their descrimination against anyone who even dares to question, not to mention the atrocities that have been inflicted upon so many thousands of kids worldwide through the so called ‘clergy’. Religion plays no part in my life as I believe in ‘reality’ not the tales preached by mere mortals when I was a kid and open to the religious brainwashing of the time.

  4. joshua clearwater

    November 18, 2015 at 8:18 am

    Im very much a Roman Catholic… when I said that parents if they do not like the teaching should take their children out of the Catholic school and they themselves should leave the faith.. is because you cannot pick and choose what to believe. If you are going to call yourself Catholic and raise your children to be the same… do not expect a Catholic school then to teach anything that doesnt jive with Catholic teaching. In the fact of the matter.. a Catholic school would be doing a huge injustice to the faith if they ever allowed parents or anyone else outside of the church leadership to dictate what is taught in one of their schools. Again if a person does not agree with that is being taught in a Catholic school, well theres always public schools!

  5. Lynne Newington

    November 17, 2015 at 8:51 pm

    #23 Why should Catholics take their “kids” out of the system, if they weren’t such darned hypocrites….and besides the government gives them funding through the taxpayer, noting Australia is a member of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child that out ways the right to discriminate against them.
    There was a time they could refuse to Baptise them and even then, if the father was a cleric….. you wouldn’t want to go there.

  6. joshua clearwater

    November 17, 2015 at 12:37 pm

    easy fix.. dont like what the church teaches in its schools? take your kids out of the school and leave the catholic faith.

  7. Lynne Newington

    November 16, 2015 at 9:49 pm

    #21, absolutely and one has to take their hat off to Martine Delaney for pursuing them noting Porteous [under instruction of course from higher echelons] has backed down now the case has been accepted by the Commissioner.

  8. Leigh Brown

    November 16, 2015 at 5:28 pm

    To me, “Freedom of Speech” implies willingness to listen to both sides of an argument in any debate and be willing to change your mind in the face of a strong argument. The trouble with the Catholic church is that they will never be persuaded by good argument, because they must of necessity “follow the party line”. There is no point in arguing with them. They should leave their preaching to those who will listen to it without question.

  9. Lynne Newington

    October 3, 2015 at 1:21 pm

    There were many Catholic parents up in arms over the “pastoral letter” sent out to their parish schools by their local bishops, apart from the booklet referred that it was based on, discriminating against children of same sex couples, some attending the school.
    There was such an uproar the letter was removed from the online version of the school website by the relevant Catholic Education Office.
    All power to them!
    No voices from Tassie mothers?
    Over the years more than one has already suffered at the hands of the church with discrimination against theirs…….all apples of our Gods eye.

  10. davis

    October 2, 2015 at 6:27 pm

    #17 I have the same issue. If your a socialist you can say what you want. If the target is a Liberal or conservative then it is no holds bar.

    Basically it is censorship.

    And this thread is a classic. It ticks all those progressive feel good boxes socialists just love. Sadly it also reveals the inner authoritarian of those on the left.

    What is at stake here is freedom of speech, the cornerstone of any decent democracy.

    If a religion which is more than 2000 years old cannot express it’s long held viewpoint without the fear of prosecution then what hope is there for anyone else?

    There are no ifs or buts when it comes to free speech. And there certainly should not be any redress just because a person is offended.

    As Stephen Fry said “Your offended?’ So f@#king what.”

    The consequences if the author wins this case will be both dire and long lasting.

    The very worrying thing is with the leftie numpties we have on the Commission the author may well win.

  11. mark

    October 2, 2015 at 5:45 pm

    Ms. Delaney, if the church have broken a law and you want to fight for truth, I envy your energy and always support justice (well nearly..)
    For the bits that simply offend you and you want to control, nahh tough toe nails. You say ‘The Church has every right to freedom of speech..’
    Then comes the ‘but’.
    So typical and textbook of the Left wanting to shut down any thinking that they don’t agree with.

  12. Big G

    October 2, 2015 at 12:55 pm

    Thanks for not posting my comments.

    It appears people like Lynne can go on a rant, but others have their comments deleted.

    Scratch a leftie and what do we find ???.

  13. Lynne Newington

    October 1, 2015 at 8:32 pm

    I agree absolutely it isn’t a laughing matter and I’m not laughing at all.
    Those of us with a Catholic background have had to hear [and many experiencing] the hypocrisy for decades including from the pulpit.
    You have no argument from me.

  14. Big G

    October 1, 2015 at 3:33 pm

    Lynne, you may think the issue is laughable, but it is a serious issue for any politician to assert in public for political convenience that they adhere to a certain belief, but yet their voting patterns are at odds with their profession.

    They are technically lying to the electorate and their community.

  15. Lynne Newington

    October 1, 2015 at 1:07 am

    #13 Just when Malcolm Turnbull was receiving plaudits…… Cardinal in waiting Anthony Fisher with his conscience that has to be formed by church teaching and the mutual admiration society between Abbott and Pell ….your hope springs eternal could well be a long way off.

  16. Big G

    September 30, 2015 at 7:18 pm

    #12 – And the relevancy of your post to the story is ??

  17. Lynne Newington

    September 30, 2015 at 6:52 pm

    Breaking News if anybody missed it:
    Rabid Abbott is begging Liberals not to resign from the Party in protest at his outing! [The Australian].
    Begone foul beast!

  18. Big G

    September 30, 2015 at 1:26 pm

    #10 We live in Hope..

  19. Lynne Newington

    September 29, 2015 at 9:31 pm

    #9 He hasn’t been put to the real test yet…….
    Cardinal in waiting Archbishop Anthony Fisher will have his eyes on him.

  20. Big G

    September 29, 2015 at 5:31 pm

    If half of what you say is true Lynne then Malcolm Turnbull would have been showed the door a long time ago.

  21. Lynne Newington

    September 29, 2015 at 1:41 pm

    #5. Not being a native of Tasmania, I followed Mr Jim Collins director of FamilyVoice
    reading his response to the claim being made against Archbishop Porteous being attacked for Christian teaching.
    It was a noble act on his behalf being a Baptist, unaware of the clout of the Catholic Church, within and without of politics.
    Catholic politicians have been warned many times what will happen to them if they go against church teaching not limited excommunication.
    What other religious institution can claim to have that influence over it’s flock?
    Certainly not the little Baptists with their hearts in the right place.

  22. Lynne Newington

    September 29, 2015 at 1:19 pm

    #Peter if all the young girl did going to uni listening to alternitive music was becoming a lesbian she was lucky.
    One uni lecturer was into psychedelic drugs…..and multipile other.
    Mr Abbott gave him a wonderful send off in parliament *Ajournment Ronald Conway. [OpenAustralia.org.],then look up Brokenrites and see what harm he did in the real world.
    I wonder if we’re talking about the same uni…..it’s a small world.

  23. peter adams

    September 29, 2015 at 1:11 am

    Is there any mention in this booklet about a certain young girl who went to uni, started listening to alternative music and became a lesbian?

  24. Big G

    September 28, 2015 at 9:48 pm

    Maybe because they are representing the views of their communities, who for the large part have done nothing wrong and have a right to have their views heard.

    Typical hypocritical lefties with double standards …

    And then the kumbaya crowd claim they are the tolerant one’s?

  25. TV Resident

    September 28, 2015 at 4:24 pm

    How dare these ‘hypocrites’ try to dictate their beliefs to anyone else. After all the reputation of this particular religion and others is completely smashed after the ‘child sexual abuse’ revelations. In my opinion anyone who believes their twaddle about ‘fairies’ is not in a sane position to tell others what is right and wrong. It’s obviously a case of ‘don’t do as I do but do as I say’.

  26. Lynne Newington

    September 27, 2015 at 10:33 pm

    Hypocrisy at it’s worse when you consider his knowledge of children born of hetrosexual clergy and denied their rights to preserve the illusion of a celibate priesthood.

  27. Chris

    September 27, 2015 at 7:02 pm

    Any one who believes the jargon in the “book” (bible) and truly ruly thinks that snakes talked in Greek or Hebrew to some bloke called Adam with an apple tree in the background needs urgent psychological assistance, along with anyone dressed in a skirt and brandishing a crook to tell people assembled there is a DISCRIMINATING person.
    Like Mr Empty’s “creative” appointment of a whip because he is in the church is bizarre

  28. Big G

    September 27, 2015 at 3:46 pm

    What an absolute joke and a pure stunt.

    I hope the good Bishop takes legal action in return and orders an apology from the Tasmanian Greens to the Catholic Church.


    Editor’s note: Please, one persona on TT – see point 5 http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/pages/legalbits

Leave a Reply

To Top