Support the Café

Search our Site

Aussie couple threaten divorce if the government of Australia legalizes same-gender marriage

Aussie couple threaten divorce if the government of Australia legalizes same-gender marriage

High school sweethearts, married for 10 years and parents of children, Nick & Sarah Jensen claim that if same-gendered marriage is legalized in Australia, they will no longer recognize the government’s regulation of marriage and that they will divorce.

Mr Jensen cited a strange idea that state regulation of marriage has only existed for a little over 200 years, first in England, then in Australia. The 600 years prior to that marriage was controlled by the church and before the church, there was only local culture and custom, like jumping brooms in Wales, that regulated marriage.

The Jensen’s announced their decision to divorce and live together without benefit of marriage in an op-ed piece in the Canberra City News. In the article Mr Jensen posited the typical traditionalist stance that marriage was an institution established by God. That the purpose was for the propagation of children and centered around the family with a parent of each gender as the building block of society. He also stated that any expansion of the definition of marriage by the state would open the door to polygamy.

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.

The Jensens published their op-ed piece in their anticipation that the Australian government may legal same-gendered marriage later this year.

The information for this story was gathered here and here.

Photo from the op-ed article in the City News

Posted by David Allen


Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Susan Forsburg

Amusingly, apparently under Aussie law they cannot divorce if they intend to continue living together, since living together reveals that the marriage has not broken down. A stunt, meant to say “if THOSE people can be married, it’s no longer special” which really means, “if THOSE people can be married, who can I look down upon?”

Robert Michaels

Why would they divorce? And from what? If they no longer recognize civil marriage as a valid institution, there is no need for divorce, since they were never licitly married in the first place. Consistency in your bigotry, please,

Kurt Hill

The Jensen statement (“threat”) is a truly juvenile response to the possibility of same-gender marriage in Australia. However, given the truly wacky nature of what is known as “Sydney ‘Anglicanism’” and its Con-Evo Calvinist thrust, is anyone surprised? What I wonder is if these folks are a part of the notorious Jensen clan whose strange theology includes such fundamentalist notions as “male headship.” Anyone know anything about them…?

Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY

Jim Frodge

Once again someone is trotting out the “procreation” argument to justify his opposition to same sex marriage.

Obviously if true this means that a man and woman cannot be married if one is beyond child bearing age. A man and woman cannot marry if one cannot procreate because of a medical condition. A man and woman cannot marry if one simply does not want to produce a child. According to Mr. Jensen’s beliefs God will not recognize the love that these people have for each other because they cannot or will not produce a family centered around a mother and father.

The Jensens and others who think like them have a right to their beliefs and I respect that right and I would hope that they respect my right to disagree with them. However please present well thought out arguments and reasonable alternatives. This divorce idea of theirs that would destroy their properly formed family seems to fly in the face of their original argument about God and family.

Mark Mason

Maybe their argument is well thought out in their minds. Can two atheist really be married in the eyes of God? If two atheist divorce have they torn assunder what God has joined together? If God and the goverment see both marriage and divorce diffrently, will they really be divorced in the eyes of God? Or maybe their ideas on that are as well thought as mine and yours, only diffrent…

Curt Norrod

“Threaten”??? Threaten who? God?
This is humorously sad.

Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café