Somewhat Queerly, Conservative Prediction is Fulfilled

I honestly do not go out looking for these sorts of things, things that are a bit further up the thick end of the wedge. But tonight coming home from work I tuned into Radio New Zealand (our public broadcaster, pretty reliable on news and views) only to find an item citing a lobby group called Queer Avengers who both support the proposed gay 'marriage' bill and promise to push beyond that, including pressing for legal marriages involving multiple partners. 


The written up version of that RNZ item does not mention the name of the group, but we can find out more about the group through the Blogger's Friend (Google). Here is an excerpt from a Yahoo news item featuring QA:

"She adds that there are many family structures which marriage and adoption law does not cover, for example polyamory and whangai adoption. "This is not the final struggle," Sara concludes. "We're looking ahead to the struggles beyond marriage.""

Well whangai is a "customary Māori practice where a child is raised by someone other than their birth parents – usually a relative." Not much to disagree with there. But polyamory? Provided for by law to be able to adopt children with X Mums and Y Dads?

Now, ADU does not presume for a moment that all supporters of Louisa Wall's bill are also supporters of polyamory.

But what does interest ADU about this item is that it bears out a conservative prediction about Western society's liberal, progressive pressure for change to the laws on marriage: it comes without commitment to make this the last change.

It may be just the first!


It is fascinating that responsible news outlets such as Radio NZ and Yahoo are quite sanguine about publishing the views of an obscure group which surely must be whistling in the wind if they think they have any kind of significant (though minority) support.

But then it was an Anglican bishop who once pressed his fellow bishops to expand their horizons:

"Speaking in response to papers offered in March [2010] on Human Sexuality to the US House of Bishops meeting in Texas, Bishop Robinson stated the church should move beyond the stale categories of hetero- and homo-sexuality.  It was time to move beyond speaking of “GLBT” (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered) orientations for there “are so many other letters in the alphabet,” and “there are so many other sexualities to be explored."

The conservative point here is to probe what the bigger picture of progressive vision is on sexuality.
We are on a hiding to nothing. In response to casting doubt as to whether we are being treated to an honest and comprehensive exposition of that vision, we are liable to be labelled as bigots, told we are protesting too much, or simply held up to ridicule as out of touch with both human society and divine spirit.

What is also fascinating from a conservative perspective is that it is actually harder than it looks to change the church's theology of marriage. At the recent TEC General Convention, it decided it was too hard to change its own canons in order to authorise a rite for blessing same sex partnerships. Some bishops approving that change have gone back to their diocese and promptly announced they are not going to permit such blessings to take place. In our own church my post below On Marriage is intended to pose a challenge to those pressing for change: what changes do you propose to the canon on marriage to give liturgical and theological effect to the blessing of same sex partnerships?


Perhaps that question could be answered before conservatives are denounced for resisting change.

LATER: I was in Auckland a few days ago and read this opinion piece in the NZ Herald.