The Jensens make the perfect argument FOR marriage equality.

We should thank the Jensens

The couple that threatened to divorce if marriage equality came to Australia have been getting a lot of flak for their illogical, homophobic and generally bigoted views. But I say we need to thank this couple, they have proven once and for all that opposition to marriage equality does not make sense, they have proven that it is not logical or rational. They have shown that only bigots and homophobes would oppose giving equal rights to all Australians. 

They have succeeded where years of protests and petitions have failed. They have ended the ‘debate’ over marriage equality in Australia. They have won the argument, in favor of marriage equality. From now on if a bigot starts being homophobic we can just say “The Jensens” and we win the argument, it’s over. 

For to long the bigots have hidden behind a religion, for to long they have gotten away with circular arguments. Each time a point (that often has nothing to do with marriage equality in the first place) is discounted, they change the argument to some other point, without admitting their wrongheadedness, this would go on a few times, until the original already disproved point is brought up again, thus starting the cycle again. But no more, these zombie points are no longer to be tolerated, two simple words stop the bigots argument dead; "The Jensens".

You’re still not sure, let’s examine what they said and how it ends the ‘debate’. We will give there story far more attention than it deserves, in the hopes we will never have to do it again. 

The original article was published in CityNews.

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

So far so good, get a divorce, that’s sad for you but life goes on.

So, the decision to divorce is not one we’ve taken lightly. And certainly, it’s not one that many will readily understand. And that’s because it’s not a traditional divorce.

Non traditional divorce, well that rules out them claiming to want to uphold any traditions related to marriage. 

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 there going to get a divorce, breaking their vows before the church, their god and family, then they’re going to live in sin, have sex out of wedlock, and lie about their marital status to each other. And they think they can pull a fast one on their god, that he won’t notice they have had a divorce, interesting.
I should note here it seems they realise there is a difference between legal marriage and their interpretation of their religions current definition of marriage.

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

OK, well that’s alright we don’t know exactly where marriage began in history, many cultures and religions have mythology’s about the gods giving technology or knowledge as gifts, we could extrapolate from that that one or more pagan deities did indeed bring marriage to his or her worshipers. 

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.

Well they are entitled to their view of marriage. But no their god, and knowing they identify as Christian I’m going to assume they are talking about the Christian god, has no business in other religions marriages, in atheist marriages, or in marriages sanctioned by other gods. Their views on what marriage is should only apply to their own marriage. It should be noted that marriage is very old, and most probably predates Christianity, but they are entitled to hold those views even if their wrong.

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.

Oh my, careful your homophobia is showing. That is kind of like, refusing to buy milkshakes because you don’t like banana milkshakes.

In Wales, for example, a couple would jump over a broomstick in the doorway of their new home to be married, and jump back across it to divorce.

This otherwise odd move of the State into marriage was ultimately permitted as long as it was seen as upholding a pre-existing societal good.

Oh my not only homophobic but also religiously bigoted. He is referring here to the Pagan marriage ceremony that sometimes included, but was not limited to the symbolic jumping over the broom. He notes how marriage has changed over the years and how government became involved. Then he makes some assumptions about conditions put upon the government in relation to its involvement in marriage. I have no idea where he is pulling this from, I’m not a historian and no sources are given. Due to their wobbly interpretation of the facts so far, I’m inclined to just move on.

Societal good, well then he should be for equal rights, he should be against homophobia, for freedom of religion, he should be for separation of church and state…should be.

If our federal parliament votes to change the timeless and organic definition of marriage later on this year, it will have moved against the fundamental and foundational building block of Australian society and, indeed, human culture everywhere.

One could argue that marriage is a fundamental building block of our modern society, I can’t agree that recognising same sex couples (who love each other and are married in all but governmental recognition anyway), could possibly undermine the society on which it is based. In face the opposite would be true; it would only further strengthen marriage, and our society.  Legal equality can only be a good thing.

Wait just one minute here buddy, human culture everywhere? I realise that this couple is ignorant, but that comment an outright falsehood, marriage equality exists in The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Denmark, Brazil, France, Uruguay, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Luxemburg, Finland, Iceland, and Ireland.

This is why we are willing to divorce. By changing the definition of marriage, “marriage” will, in years to come, have an altogether different sense and purpose.

The definition of marriage has been changing through the ages of human history; in fact in Australia the definition of marriage was changed in 2004 to exclude same sex couples. Which means this couple should be fighting that ruling. The ancient Egyptians, ancient Romans, old African, Northern India during Mughal rule, Ancient China, Ancient Japan, Mayan culture, and Ancient Greece, all had various definitions of marriage and all those noted accepted same sex marriages.

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.

Wow how romantic…really? Is that really what went through your mind as you married the person you loved?

Marriage is sacred and what is truly “marriage” will only ever be what it has always been.

Here he muddles the difference between his religions definition of marriage and Australia’s legal definition.  I agree that my marriage will be sacred, as I declare my love before the gods, but I will also one day hope to get legal recognition of my holy union.
As I have already demonstrated, their interpretation of their particular religions current definition of marriage shouldn’t be relevant to the law, we actually have a constitution that is supposed to prevent that kind of thing. Their religions definition of marriage has changed a lot, not sure why they would sin (bearing false witness) by saying it has always been the same definition. A Christian should know this; that the biblical definition of marriage is not the same as legal marriage in Australia and that’s a good thing.

Many Christians, like my wife and me, as well as people of other faiths, will simply reject the need for the State to recognise their marriage. Instead they will look to the authority of their church, mosque or temple.

But there are broader implications for everyone, not just people of faith, to consider on this issue; for example, children’s rights, religious freedom, freedom of speech, and the broader fundamental rights of conscience and association. With our media’s relentless push to get this “over the line”, these issues have barely been noticed so far in the national debate.

I am a people of ‘other faith’ and I will support marriage equality.  But what they are saying is fine, weather they get married or not only affects them and their family. It does not harm me at all.

Now I initially though he was arguing what will happen if people stop being legally married, (arguing equality’s case for us) but I think he has gone off on a tangent. Let’s look at his points quickly;

Children’s rights- The legal age of marriage will not change, nor will surrogacy or adoption laws. Children of same sex couple would have the same protections and stability that legal marriage provides. The Marriage equality laws will not specifically effect children.

Religious Freedom- No religions practitioner is going to be forced to perform marriage that they don’t want to, they can continue to discriminate and hold their bigoted ways. The constitution of Australia prevents laws that limit religious freedom, the current marriage laws are thus unconstitutional, and so the religious freedom argument should be for marriage equality.

Freedom of Speech- Freedom of speech should stop where it becomes hate speech or incites violence or discrimination against another. Marriage equality however will not affect ‘freedom of speech’ laws in Australia at all.

Rights of conscience and association- Not sure what they are getting at? It seems maybe that they don’t want to be associated with marriage if it allows gay people to be in it. Well too bad, I don’t want bigots to call themselves Australian, and I am sure a lot of Christians would rather he weren’t claiming to be one of them, but we have freedom of association (mostly) in Australia. The marriage laws won’t change that.

This has been a big decision for my wife and I. Some will accuse of us being bigoted or too hateful to share. But this couldn’t be further from our intentions.

No accusations are necessary, this couples actions and disingenuous diatribe prove that they are bigoted, intentionally or not. If the couple don't want to be identified as bigots they need to lobby for the definition of bigotry to be changed or stop being bigoted.

The truth is, “marriage” is simply too important. It is a sacred institution, ordained by God. It has always been understood to be that exclusive relationship where one man and one woman become “one flesh”. Any attempt to change the definition of marriage by law is not something in which we are able to partake.

That is not the truth, They again make the mistake of thinking all marriages are somehow the property of their god. They lie about marriage always being the same thing, I say they lie because anyone googling marriage history can find the truth. Well they are currently partaking in changed marriage, it was changed in 2004, but I’m guessing that change was alright, because it enabled and was in line with their homophobia.

---

I should also mention that, divorce is not a part of Christian marriage, and that you can’t legally get divorced while living together in Australia.

Nick Jensen is the director of the Lachlan Macquarie Institute, which helps develop leaders in public policy and is reputably involved in the Australia ‘Christian’ lobby hate group.

So there you have it, these two bigots have shown in no uncertain terms that there is no valid argument against marriage equality.

Also ill just leave this here, as it seems a certain couple missed it when they read the christian bible.

There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked

plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

—Proverbs 6:16–19