Good Christian marraige

[Gob]

A Canberra couple have vowed to get a divorce, ending their "sacred" 10-year union, if Australia allows same-sex couples to legally marry.



Nick Jensen and his wife Sarah 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.

The Christian couple have been happily married for over a decade, have no intention of separating and hope to have more children. For all intents and purposes they have a healthy marriage.

But in a novel protest against any successful move to legalise same sex-marriage in Australia, Mr Jensen wrote in an article published in Canberra CityNews on Wednesday that they are prepared to divorce.

"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," said Mr Jensen, who is director of the Lachlan Macquarie Institute, which partners with the Australian Christian Lobby to offer scholarships designed to develop a Christian worldview and foster leaders in government policy.

Mr Jensen told Fairfax Media that he and his wife entered into their marriage "as a fundamental order of creation, part of God's intimate story for human history, man and woman, for the sake of children, faithful and for life".

"And so, if later on in the year the state does go ahead and changes the definition of marriage and changes the terms of that contract then we can no longer partake in that new definition unfortunately," he said.

Legalising same-sex marriage would undermine "our most sacred institution, and have serious consequences for children who would grow up without a mother or father," Mr Jensen said.

He also feared that recognising same-sex couples would mean that the definition of marriage could be expanded even further.

"Once you say that marriage is detached from children, [that it's] just about love, then when three people come to the state and say 'well we're all in love', then the state has no grounds, except unjust discrimination, to say why they can't get married," he said.

"When it becomes detached to the child's right to a mother and a father and the sacred institution that it is, then suddenly it becomes meaningless and those boundaries can't be put back in place," he said.

The move is in stark contrast to high-profile celebrities who have vowed not to marry until gay marriage is legalised.

While Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie reneged on their promise not to marry in 2014, former Wallabies captain David Pocock and his partner Emma Palandri pledged in 2011 to not get married until same-sex marriage was legalised in Australia.

Let's hope they don't breed.

[Econoline]

I saw a link to this story on Jim Wright's (of Stonekettle Station) Facebook page. His comment: "It's nice to know it's NOT just us. Australia apparently has Texans too!"

[Big RR]

Well if that's what they choose to do--more power to them. But IMHO it's a silly as saying "if the wife beater next store is married, then I'm divorcing because allowing the wife beater to remain married would undermine "our most sacred institution,...".

Maybe their church can trademark a term like "[whatever denomination] sanctioned marriage" and allow only those who meet that limited class of married couples to use that term. Or maybe they could seek to trademark "Jensen heterosexual sanctioned marriage" and grant licenses to people who meet their criteria to use the term. It could be a new business,

[wesw]

that is one scary looking couple. their smiles are only lip deep....

[BoSoxGal]

Let's hope they don't breed.

From the article you posted:

The Christian couple have been happily married for over a decade, have no intention of separating and hope to have more children. For all intents and purposes they have a healthy marriage.

Too late!

[Sue U]

I saw a link to this story on Jim Wright's (of Stonekettle Station) Facebook page. His comment: "It's nice to know it's NOT just us. Australia apparently has Texans too!"

It's not enough that they divorce. They have to then be gay-married under Shariah law and have terrorist anchor babies/socialist abortions before being sent to a FEMA camp for their death panel. Then they'll be Texans.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Gingers!

[dgs49]

Although they certainly look like idiots in the picture, I see their point.

If the State chooses to define "marriage" in a way that they find offensive, then maybe they should withdraw from that state-defined institution as a matter of protest. They will presumably remain married in the eyes of their church.

Consider: A person is valedictorian of her HS class. Academically, the #1 student. The following year, the school announces that henceforth everyone having a certain GPA will be given the title, "Valedictorian." In the first year of the new policy, 25 students are awarded valedictorian pins.

In protest, person #1, notifies the school that she is "turning in" her valedictorian pin. It has been rendered essentially meaningless (n her view).

[rubato]

No more sex for them!



yrs,
rubato

[liberty]

It is not a piece of paper that makes a marriage. Marriage is about love and commitment. I am starting to think that the idea of the state issuing a permissions to marry is a concept that has out lived it usefulness. There was a time when the state needed to be concerned with sexual morals and the transmission stds, but do you really thing that a marriage license has any effect on either these days. Perhaps it is time for the government to get out of the marriage business and leave it to churches, families, clubs and individuals.

And I have a question for you bigots: If a guy wants to have three wives how does that hurt you? Wow, my church would be shocked to hear me say that.

[MajGenl.Meade]

On the most elementary level, how does a person killing another person in (say) Philadelphia hurt me if I don't know either of 'em and know no one who knows them and it has zero effect on my life, ever?

[I am not saying polygamy = murder. I'm questioning the logical rationale of "if it doesn't hurt you, what's the harm in it?"]

[liberty]

On the most elementary level, how does a person killing another person in (say) Philadelphia hurt me if I don't know either of 'em and know no one who knows them and it has zero effect on my life, ever?

[I am not saying polygamy = murder. I'm questioning the logical rationale of "if it doesn't hurt you, what's the harm in it?"]

Well, if you will let me clarify: Does it hurt you, your loved ones or the society in which you live?

[MajGenl.Meade]

No, I live in Kent OH - Philadelphia is a long way away. Might as well be in China for all I care

[Sue U]

No, I live in Kent OH - Philadelphia is a long way away. Might as well be in China for all I care

Hey! I can spit on Philadelphia from here!

And you may "live" in Kent, OH (if you call that living), but I know for a fact you're buried in Philadelphia.

[wesw]

ok lib, I ll take your bait. polygamy hurts society because it makes many young men do without females. in fundamentalist Mormon communities young men are driven away to fend for themselves, like young lions

in muslim traditions the women must be hidden away in full body coverings and secret harems to 'protect' them from men who don t have enough women to go around and tend to take them violently.

in polygamy, many times women are seen as chattel.

there is one society in china where the women control the households and share husbands, but the women are in control there and the men visit their wives separate houses. that might work, if you are willing to live in a female centric society.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Coffee in the keyboard, Sue... pay up!

[Guinevere]

No, I live in Kent OH - Philadelphia is a long way away. Might as well be in China for all I care

Hey! I can spit on Philadelphia from here!

And you may "live" in Kent, OH (if you call that living), but I know for a fact you're buried in Philadelphia.

That's a keeper.

[Scooter]

Apparently they haven't got quite the response they were expecting:

More than 160,000 people plan to throw a massive party the day a Christian couple files for divorce if Australia adopts marriage equality later this year.

Last week, Nick Jensen and his wife Sarah announced their plans to dissolve their 10 year union if gays are allowed to get married Down Under.

by the Canberra CityNews. “By changing the definition of marriage, ‘marriage’ will, in years to come, have an altogether different sense and purpose. We no longer wish to be associated with this new definition.”

Now, a Facebook event page has been created celebrating the Jensen’s impending divorce.

The party is being hosted by one Jesse Mount, who writes: “I invite everyone who supports marriage equality to come celebrate the DIVORCE of Nick & Sarah Jensen!”

“They have decided that being married together in a country where it’s legal for a man and a man to marry, or a woman and a woman, is just too horrible,” the invitation continues. “They’d much rather be divorced and I think we should all support and celebrate in their decision when the date finally does come.”

This is a good time to remember the opposite couples actually took a very different and positive stand, refusing to marry until their LGBT friends and family were allowed the same rights and responsibilities under the law.

So far, nearly 165,000 people have RSVP’d to the celebration, which is tentatively scheduled for September 1. That’s only a placeholder, however, until the legislation actually goes through.

Mr. and Mrs. Jensen, if you’re reading, please let us know where we should send flowers.

[Gob]

I didn't know Meade was a wop!

[MajGenl.Meade]

I didn't know Meade was a wop!

Oh you just knew I'd do this... it's entrapment, I tell you!

A wop is an Italian. Spaniards are dagos as any fule kno. Never mind what interweb dictionaries say - Sir Francis Drake knew the truth.

Anyway, Meade wasn't. His father was working in Spain for the US Gov't - both his parents were USian.