Quantcast
Connect with us

‘Marriage is simply too important:’ Christian couple vows to divorce if gays allowed to wed

Published

on

Sarah and Nick Jensen, an Australian couple, published a letter saying they’re considering divorce after 10 years of marriage — because gay people in the country might soon have the legal right to marry, the Sydney Morning Herald reports.

According to the paper, the Jensens believe “widening the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples threatens the sacred nature of the union and leaves the door open to polygamy.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The Jensens’ divorce threat letter is lengthy, and can be read in its entirety here. What follows is an exerpt from the text:

“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…

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.

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.

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.”

Nick Jensen directs the Laclan Macquarie Institute, which “[fosters] a greater appreciation of the relevance of a Christian worldview in public policy.”

“In modern Australia,” reads the organization’s vision statement, “we are now seeing the very nature of public life declining at an alarming rate. The adversarial nature of the parties, the unfortunate lack of reasoned debate, the shallowness of media interest, and the manipulation of power has all seen a real need emerge for leaders like Macquarie, leaders of integrity, faith and value.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

‘Stay out of the way’: Fox News sources say Justice Roberts will let GOPers win tie votes on witnesses

Published

on

Chief Justice John Roberts is expected not to weigh in heavily during the question and answer phase of the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.

As the trial moves to the new phase on Wednesday, Roberts has the option of "inserting himself" into the process to rule on questions or other matters, according to Fox News correspondent Chad Pergram.

But sources told the Fox News reporter that Roberts will follow the model of former Chief Justice William Rehnquist who presided over President Bill Clinton's impeachment trial in 1999.

Under the Senate rules, measures that do not receive a majority of votes fail. So if a Senate vote of witnesses was tied 50-50, the measure would not pass. Roberts could choose to break the tie but he is not expected to do so.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Ex-Trump chief of staff John Kelly: ‘I believe’ John Bolton and the Senate ‘should hear’ from him

Published

on

John Kelly, a former chief of staff to President Donald Trump, told a crowd in Sarasota, Florida on Tuesday that he believes former national security adviser John Bolton's claim that Trump directly linked releasing military aid to Ukraine with launching investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune reports that Kelly told an audience at a Ringling College Library Association Town Hall lecture that Bolton is a reliable source and should be heard out if reporting about his upcoming book is accurate.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Law professor who studied under Alan Dershowitz shreds his ‘shockingly wrong’ case against impeaching Trump

Published

on

Aya Gruber, a professor at the University of Colorado Law School who studied under Trump impeachment attorney Alan Dershowitz at Harvard, had some uncharitable words to say about her former professor's argument against impeaching the president.

"Dershowitz was my criminal law prof, and he was a good one," Gruber writes on Twitter. "But as a crim law prof myself, I can say his motive argument (Congress shouldn't examine the internal motives of POTUS so long he could have had a good reason for withholding aid) is shockingly wrong."

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image