EVERY new administration deserves a honeymoon. A period of time without duress in which to get its act together, to learn a bit about each other’s strengths and weaknesses, to coalesce, to develop from a group of individuals who come from different perspectives, into a team. It could take up to six months, but if it is not working well after that period then it probably never will. In any event, after half a year a new government is fair game and should expect to be shot at.
So, instead of commenting on our new government’s first, possibly unsteady, steps during this week’s Assembly I’m using this space to express views on those who did fire shots, in my view unfairly, immediately before and after the election. I’ll start with those who did their utmost to damage the election prospects of the individual who rose above the slings and arrows to finish close to the top of the poll and then to be elected Chief Minister.
In the old Assembly John Le Fondré, an active and persistent scrutineer, proposed an amendment to the proposition permitting same-sex marriage which would have had the effect of allowing those who had conscientious objections to gay marriage to exercise their demurral. For example, the owner of a venue might not permit two persons of the same sex to marry on his or her premises. The amendment failed. Nevertheless, there were howls of protest and no small amount of derision about it from the gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender community in general and supporters of gay marriage in particular. Some offensive letters and a couple of similar columns appeared in this newspaper and when others tried to defend the politician’s motives they were condemned as homophobes, bigots and worse.
Those who protested loudest, trying to drown out anyone who offered a different view from their own are the real bigots. The LGBT community not unreasonably demands inclusiveness, but sadly some of their number refuse to include anyone who doesn’t agree with them, regardless of the reason for dissent.
The issue of same-sex marriage is as ethically challenging for some as that of abortion, the death penalty and taking life for one’s country in war; they are all matters of conscience. Those wartime conscripts who found the prospect of killing morally indefensible – so-called conscientious objectors – were vilified for their beliefs in much the way those who struggle with the concept of gay marriage are today.
I’m not a religious person, but count many believers among my friends and associates, a number of them devout Christians. Some believe the Bible sets a pattern for their lives, which they try to follow: ‘Marriage is a covenant, a sacred bond between a man and a woman instituted by and publicly entered into before God.’ These words, from the first book of the Bible, are hugely meaningful for many and I don’t understand why a faction of aggressive advocates of gay rights simply refuses to allow that these believers can have deeply-felt conscientious problems with same-sex marriage. They demand inclusiveness, but only insofaras one agrees with their definition of it. They argue passionately in favour of their rights whilst seeking to remove the rights of those who have the temerity to disagree. It is hypocrisy, plain and simple.
I believe in inclusiveness, but being genuinely inclusive means making room for dissenters, allowing those who have deeply-felt convictions to withdraw from an action they find difficult or distasteful. We have to make a stand for proper freedom to say what we feel is right and to act in a similar way without being harangued.
ON the topic of hypocrisy, it’s interesting that the Reform group of politicians were among those who criticised John Le Fondré for his amendment, but they appeared to lose their stated reluctance to work with him as soon as there was an opportunity to be part of government.
Of course, it was the agreement with Reform, which led to their five States Members voting for Senator Le Fondré as Chief Minister, that was the other election time issue that had correspondents dashing off Mr Angry letters to the editor. They appeared to be about evenly balanced between those who were critical of Mr Le Fondré and those who were supportive. Interestingly, although it takes two parties to make a contract, I didn’t see a single letter criticising Reform for entering the agreement. Apparently, it’s fine for a political party to cut a deal, but not an individual. Funny that.
