Writing for CityNews, Mr Jensen said marriage is “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,” he wrote.
“For us, fundamentally, when we got married we signed a contract with the state and that contract was around the current definition of marriage and all the things that comes with it. Man and woman for life, for the sake of children.”
“If it came to be that the definition of the contract was changed, the contract is now null and void.”
“The reason the state is involved in marriage at all is mainly around property law and divorce courts,” Mr Jensen told BuzzFeed News.
“The church was involved in marriage for 500-600 years before the state got involved. The church only said ‘we’ll allow you to have this [marriage] as long as you uphold it’, if the state suddenly changes its definition, it suddenly changes the whole situation,” he said.
“There certainly will be consequences around religious freedom and freedom of conscience. It is going to be a huge issue, as we’ve seen in other countries. Businesses, the public service, wedding photographers. It’s affecting a wide net and that’s not really being talked about.”
When asked if a wedding photographer could refuse to work at, for example, the wedding of an interracial couple if that violated the photographer’s religious beliefs, Mr Jensen said freedom of conscience is a two-way street.
“I would flip it back around though,” he said. “If you have a same-sex couple who run a bakery and the Westboro Baptist Church comes in and wants to bake a cake saying the most awful things possible, should they have to bake that? I don’t think they should.”
“I think they should have the freedom to say no if it’s against their fundamental beliefs. Now if someone said no to an interracial wedding, do I think that’s the right thing? No, not at all. But I think that you still have to respect that people are going to believe what they believe, and that they have a right to refuse service.”
“I think that’s probably a better society than the state coming in and telling people to believe what they have to believe.”
“We’ve made the decision. We’re hoping to never have to do that, [but] that is what we’d do,” he said.
“I really think the tide is turning on this one. It’s far from inevitable. If a number of things hold then we won’t be in this situation [with legislation before parliament] again for a number of years. So hopefully not, but that’s the reason I’ve written this article.”
Cortesía de: BuzzFeedFollow @DifusionLibre1