THE BLACK SHIRTS

Click here to enter the Blackshirts website

John Abbott

MARRIAGE, FAMILY, CHILDREN

The institution of marriage was never coveted by the generations for the welfare of the adults but for the welfare of children.

It cannot be said that marriage was merely a licence to have a sexual affair but to unite a man and a woman in matrimony and join them not only to each other but to the extended families on both sides. More importantly, marriage is a means in which society has some control as to who can be a responsible parent. After all, what other means can a society hope for to protect its children?

We, in our Christian faith are told that in marriage two become one. How does this happen? How can a man and a woman become one? The answer, they are joined in blood which can never be divided!

When a man and a woman have a child between them the child has the equal genes (blood) of both parents and even more importantly, the blood of the generations from the extended families from the mother and the father. Even death cannot undo this miracle of life! Further, no power exists on Earth or the heavens to undo the blood ties of the family unit.

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY ON MARRIAGE?

Marriage is regarded as the highest of all institutions and this is enshrined in the marriages Act and the Family Law Act 1975.

THE MARRIAGES ACT

“Marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”

The main points to note in this Act are as follows:

1. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman;

2. to the exclusion of all others;

3. Voluntarily entered into and,

4. for life.

What it also means is that the spouse does not own each other but they do have an exclusive right to each other.

Further at section 47 of the “Act” Ministers of religion not bound to solemnize marriage, etc.

Nothing in this part -

(b) prevents such authorized celebrants from making it a condition of his solemnizing a marriage that-

(c) requirements additional to those provided by this Act are observed.

It appears that any marriage solemnized by a Minister for religion may carry any added religious conditions and such conditions are to be “observed”.

For example, if a marriage is solemnized on the grounds of religious exercise and upon the added condition that “WHAT GOD HAS JOINED TOGETHER LET NO MAN PUT ASSUNDER” then such condition forms part of the, so to say, marriage contract then such contract must be observed.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act at Section 116 states:

“The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”

It appears that our fore fathers and mothers enshrined not only the protection of religion but also marriage especially when it was a religious marriage.

The term “or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion” may well include that any act done in the exercise of religion may not be hindered by any law of the Commonwealth.

For example, if marriage is deemed indissoluble by the conditions of your religion then “the Commonwealth shall not make any law” that would alter that “condition”. It would follow then that any law undermining an act of your religious exercise is invalid.

TO WHOM BELONGS MARRIAGE – The State or to God?

Christians are well aware of the Gospel where the Christ in being confronted by money changers and asked should the Tax be paid answered as follows:

“render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.”

Here the Christ was simply saying it is for you to choose to whom what belongs. Does marriage belong to Caesar or to God? If marriage belongs to God then how can any Christian accept divorce without rendering unto Caesar what belongs to God?

I submit that that is why our fore fathers and mothers wrote Section 116 of the Constitution. It was to ensure that no Christian or religious person would be ever forced into adultery by State laws!

For those of you who have doubts by citing what the Christ stated in Mathew and Mark in regards to marriage and divorce. The Christ said:

“Who so ever put away his wife other than it be for fornication and marries another commits adultery and who so ever is put away and marries another also commits adultery.”

There is some confusion as to the term “fornication”. Fornication has nothing to do with adultery. The difference being, fornication is a sexual act between unmarried people and adultery is a sexual act with at least one being married.

For those that are still confused, in the days of the Christ adultery meant the death penalty. It follows that divorce was unnecessary if the adulterer was put to death because the surviving spouse became a widow or widower and therefore free to, so to say, marry.

THE CRIME OF ADULTERY

There is no crime more heinous, more tragic, more damaging, more insulting, more fundamental to peoples lives than adultery! So much so that God ordered the death penalty for such a crime (Leviticus 20 – 10).

In my view, adultery is much more damaging to children’s lives than paedophilia itself. Adultery not only corrupts a child but the entire family as well. Every member of the family unit (including the entire extended family) is deeply affected by such an act and for a very long time.

Families may overcome just about anything and even death itself but will never overcome adultery. The extended family of the adulterer will feel the shame and disgust of their family members betrayal of their spouse and become shrouded in the crime especially the parents who were responsible for the upbringing of their son or daughter.

The children are torn apart and divided between their parents and other members of the family. The family home becomes a ghost residence – no longer a family home. Trust is gone and is replaced by betrayal and disgust. The unity of family has gone and all because of a mindless act of adultery.

If we endow marriage and family as fundamental to society then how can we treat the ultimate assault on family as nothing of concern?

While true that we have laws that enshrine marriage and family as the ultimate assets of society, it is also true that there is no protection to either marriage or family.

THE FAMILY LAW ACT 1975

The Family Law Act 1875 enshrines the marriage and family as fundamental to society. Section 43 of the Act reads as follows:

The Family Court shall, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under this Act, and any other court exercising jurisdiction under this Act shall, in the exercise of that jurisdiction, have regard to:

(a) the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life;

(b) the need to give the widest possible protection and assistance to the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly while it is responsible for the care and education of dependant children;

KEY POINTS:

(1) THE NEED TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT

(2) THE NEED TO GIVE THE WIDEST POSSIBLE PROTECTION

It is clear without any doubt whatsoever that society deems the marriage and family high on its agenda and regards it with the utmost priority.

However, where is the law that determines the penalty for breach of societies most precious commodity? There is none!

Many must find it very strange that society gives less protection to marriage and family then a $100.00 contract. There is no doubt that if a $100.00 contract is breached then there is legal recourse in our courts for remedy. And if someone steals a $100.00 from a Bank or person then the full weight of the law goes into action against the thief.

However, breach a marriage by committing adultery and dismantle a family and the law remains very silent. Indeed, the law all but protects the intruder/adulterer. To see evidence of this all one needs to do is sit at the Family Court and note the proceedings especially where divorce is concerned.

So much for “the need to preserve and protect” and where is “the need to give the wides possible protection”. What happened to “the family is the fundamental group unit of society”?

I say: show me the foundations and I will show you the structure! There is only one foundation to society and that is the family. When the family is breached then so is society. You cannot protect children unless you first protect the family and you cannot protect the family unless you first protect the marriage!

We as society have failed on all accounts. Who suffers? The children and the innocent!

How can anyone assume that adultery is but a mere expression? We all know what can happen when a spouse betrays their spouse and has sexual activity outside their marriage. What if the sexual partner has AIDS – brings it home to their unsuspecting spouse – impregnates their spouse and the child is born with the disease?

THE REMEDY

The people of Australia must demand from Parliament the immediate enactment of laws that “protects and defends” marriage and family and such laws should not only express the importance of marriage and family to society but should also express the outrage and disgust we hold on those that would breach marriage and family.

In short, let the punishment fit the crime. How grave is the crime? Well, that depends on how grave is the punishment imposed.

For those that would argue that such punishment would only bring back fault into divorce, let me assure you that that is not the case because we are talking about intrusion into the marriage and family and not divorce proceedings.

In any event, for those who believe in divorce, is no fault divorce capable of penalising the innocent and protecting the guilty? Is divorce an act to separate children from their parents? Can it not be said that when a mother and father divorce they are not divorcing the mother from the father but the children from the mother and the father? Can it not be said that divorce is a pagan institution?

Further, is it proper to commit children to those that do not believe in committing themselves? After all, children are for a lifetime and not just while the honeymoon lasts.

Whichever way we look at it, marriage is not a playground it is the beginning of a new family and should be treated with the respect it deserves.