In the age of coronavirus, only tiny weddings are allowed and the extended family BBQ is out

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Only five people will be able to attend a wedding – the couple, the celebrant and two witnesses – and funerals will be limited to 10 in the latest round of life-changing restrictions to be imposed on Australians to fight the coronavirus’s spread.

Real estate auctions and “open house” inspections will be stopped, and Australians will now be prohibited from leaving the country – with some carve outs such as compasssionate grounds – rather than just strongly advised not to do so.

Scott Morrison, announcing the new crackdowns, also told people to stay home, except when it was absolutely necessary to go out. But they shouldn’t have the extended family around the dinner table or over to a barbecue.

---

Read more:
View from The Hill: A contest of credible views should be seen as useful in a national crisis

---

However parents are still being told it is safe for children to go to school, and on Wednesday Morrison will meet teachers’ union representatives to discuss arrangements to protect staff, especially older teachers more vulnerable to the virus. Schools would need to reopen on the other side of the holidays, he said.

Addressing a news conference after Tuesday night’s federal-state national cabinet, Morrison said the widened list of bans would include food courts in shopping centres, except for takeaways. Outdoor and indoor markets – excluding food markets essential to ensure the food supply across the country – will be dealt with by each state and territory.

A range of personal services, including beauty therapy, tanning, waxing, nail salons and tattoo parlors, will be shut down, as well as spas and massage parlours. This does not extend to physiotherapists and similar allied health services.

Hairdressers and barbers have escaped closure, but with a social distancing limit to the number of people on their premises, and the stipulation a patron can only be there for 30 minutes.

The banned list also includes amusement parks and arcades, play centres (both indoor and outdoor), community and recreation centres, libraries, health clubs, fitness centres, yoga, barre and spin facilities, saunas, and wellness centres. Social sporting events and swimming pools are on the list, as are galleries, libraries and youth centres.

Boot camps may be held outside with no more than 10 people.

Morrison said people should “stay at home unless it is absolutely necessary you go out.

“Going out for the basics, going out for exercise, perhaps with your partner or family members, provided it’s a small group – that’s fine.” As was going out to work, where it was not possible to work from home – but not “participating more broadly in the community”.

Visits to your house “should be kept to a minimum and with very small numbers of guests.

“So that means barbecues of lots of friends, or even family, extended family, coming together to celebrate one-year-old birthday parties and all these sorts of things, we can’t do those things now.

“These will be significant sacrifices, I know.

“Gathering together in that way. even around the large family table in the family home when all the siblings get together and bring the kids, these are not things we can do now. All of these things present risks”.

He said states and territories were considering whether they would make it an offence to organise house parties.

---

Read more:
View from The Hill: Entertainment venues closed in draconian measures to fight the virus

---

“Outdoors, do not congregate together in groups.

“If you’re gathering together in a group, say, 10 people, together outside in a group, that’s not OK. We’ve got to move people on.”

Morrison said that “hopefully” a full shutdown of the retail sector would not be necessary,

“I do note in a lot of the commentary … there seems to be a great wish to go to that point. Well, be careful what you wish for on something like that. … Because that would need to be sustained for a very long time. And that could have a very significant and even more onerous impact on life in Australia.

“We should seek to try to avoid that where it is possible. But if it is necessary for health reasons, ultimately, those decisions will be taken at the time”.

Asked why an outside boot camp of ten people was allowed, Morrison said “that is a business, that is someone’s livelihood and you’re saying that I should turn their livelihood off. I’m not going to do that lightly. And if it is not believed to be necessary based on the medical expert advice.

“I am not going to be cavalier about people’s jobs and their businesses. Where possible the national cabinet together is going to try and keep Australia functioning in a way that continues to support jobs and activity in our economy which is not going to compromise the health advice that we’re receiving.

“And so no, I don’t think we should rush to that sort of [shutdown] scenario. I think you could rush to failure in that sort of scenario.

“You could rush to causing great and unnecessary harm because understand this, this country is not dealing with one crisis, we’re dealing with two crises. We are dealing with a health crisis that has caused an economic crisis.

“I am very concerned about the economic crisis that could also take a great toll on people’s lives, not just their livelihoods. The stresses that that will put on families. The things that can happen when families are under stress.

“I am as concerned about those outcomes as I am about the health outcomes of managing the outbreak of the coronavirus and it is a delicate task for the national cabinet to balance those two.

“Lives are at risk in both cases. And so the national cabinet won’t just rush on the sense of an opinion of inevitability. We will calmly consider the medical advice that is put to us and weigh those things up and make sensible decisions as leaders. I will not be cavalier about it and neither will other premiers and chief ministers.”

He apologised for the systems failure that prevented people accessing Centrelink, prompting huge queues with many people who had lost jobs visibly upset.

“We are deeply sorry”, he said. “We have gone from 6,000 [online traffic] to 50,000 to 150,000,” all in the matter of a day.

He appealed to people “even in these most difficult of circumstances, to be patient. Everyone is doing their best. What we are dealing with is unprecedented. No system is built to deal with the circumstance and events we are now facing as a nation.”.

---

Read more:
Grattan on Friday: We are now a nation in self-isolation

---

The Chief Medical Officer, Brendan Murphy, said the steep growth in the number of cases – the tally is now passed 2000 – was “very concerning”.

Nine reported advice from a group of experts from the Group of Eight universities commissioned by the federal government.

The panel recommended “Australia without delay implements national stronger social distancing measures, more extensive banning of mass gatherings, school closure or class dismissal”.

The group, in advice presented on March 22, also urged “much-enhanced” testing without delay.

It said: “Countries with significant COVID-19 infections have eventually been forced into strong public health measures in a reactive manner. It became unavoidable from a public health perspective.

“The only difference is at what point these measures are implemented, whether proactive or reactive, and how large the resulting epidemic will be.”

“Proactive measures will result in a smaller epidemic and less stress on the health system. Reactive measures (such as in Italy) may result in a greater burden of morbidity and mortality and delay in reaching the point of recovery.‘

The “dominant” position in the group was for “a comprehensive, simultaneous ban across Australia”, but the other view among its participants was for a “more proportionate response”.

With the government going down the latter path, Morrison and Murphy were noticeably uncomfortable when questioned about the advice.

Former prime minister Tony Abbott, who as health minister in 2004 drove preparations for a possible bird flu pandemic, called for a total shutdown.

“We need to have a very, very complete shutdown now to do everything we humanly can to prevent the spread of the disease,” he told 2GB.

“You can only put the economy into a coma for so long, it can’t be indefinite,” he said.

“But the more complete it is now the more likely it is to be short-lived.”

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Anti-vilification legislation for marriage ballot to pass this week

Mathias Cormann gave an assurance that there would be a bias towards freedom of speech.
Mick Tsikas/AAP

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

The parliament is preparing to rush through anti-vilification legislation to apply during the postal ballot on same-sex marriage.

Under the bill a person must not vilify, intimidate or threaten another person because of their views, expressed or believed to be held, or because of their religious conviction, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

The safeguards bill will be introduced on Wednesday and passed before parliament rises on Thursday. It has a sunset provision that means it only lasts for the duration of the ballot, the result of which will be announced on November 15.

Civil penalties will apply, to a maximum of A$12,600. But the attorney-general, George Brandis, must consent to a person taking enforcement action under the vilification and related provisions.

People are also protected from being discriminated against – in employment or by being denied access to membership of a union, club or other body – for making a donation to the campaign.

The bill requires that broadcasters, if they give opportunities for one side to put their views, must provide the other side with reasonable opportunities.

The government negotiated the emergency legislation with the opposition over the last few days.

The bill also includes requirements for authorisation of advertising and other provisions that apply to ordinary elections but did not automatically cover this voluntary postal ballot.

In the Coalition partyroom meeting one person objected to the anti-vilification provisions. But Acting Special Minister of State Mathias Cormann gave an assurance that Brandis’ approach would have a “bias towards freedom of speech”.

Labor claimed credit for securing “important concessions from the government that prohibit vilification and hate speech” during the ballot. But opposition spokespeople Mark Dreyfus and Terri Butler said in a statement: “Let’s be clear – this safeguards bill does not in any way legitimise this survey process, which has been foisted upon Australians at a massive cost”.

The ballot papers started to go out on Tuesday.

https://www.podbean.com/media/player/fr3g9-72ed6d?from=site&skin=1&share=1&fonts=Helvetica&auto=0&download=0

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Without proper protections, same-sex marriage will discriminate against conscientious objectors

If marriage is to be redefined, substantial protections should be provided for conscientious objectors.
shutterstock

Greg Walsh, University of Notre Dame Australia

Many politicians have confidently claimed that the introduction of same-sex marriage does not have the potential to violate religious liberty or the rights of conscientious objectors.

This is clearly false considering the situation overseas and in Australia. If Australia is to redefine marriage, substantial protections should be provided for conscientious objectors.

Why do we need protections?

In countries where same-sex marriage is legal, people who have opposed it have been fired or forced to resign from their jobs.

Business owners such as florists, bakers and photographers have been forced to compromise their beliefs and provide their services or face legal sanctions. In one US case, this resulted in a $135,000 fine.

Religious organisations that have refused to allow their facilities to be used for same-sex marriages have been denied government benefits such as tax exemptions. Universities with more traditional positions on marriage and sexuality have been denied accreditation. Advocacy groups promoting the view that marriage is only between a man and a woman have lost their charitable status.

In rare situations, those who have refused to facilitate same-sex marriages have been imprisoned.

In Australia, where same-sex marriage has not been introduced, there are already many examples of individuals suffering from discrimination, intimidation, boycotts and legal action.

Hobart’s Catholic Archbishop Julian Porteous was required to appear before Tasmania’s anti-discrimination commissioner after distributing a letter defending traditional marriage. This followed a complaint that it violated anti-vilification laws. The complaint was withdrawn, but only after a substantial amount of time and money had been expended on the proceedings.

Opponents of the redefinition of marriage have also been forced to cancel hotel bookings for conferences and been refused printing services for books promoting traditional marriage.

People and businesses have also experienced intimidation, boycotts and even death threats. This has included university academics, corporate employees, businesses, concerned mothers, and lobby groups.

Governments have also been willing to donate to proponents of same-sex marriage and provide other benefits (such as flying rainbow flags) while denying any such support for opponents of change. This is despite 40% of the population supporting traditional marriage.

Importantly, supporters of change do not want to introduce same-sex marriage, but two-person marriage. This new definition will raise additional challenges for conscientious objectors.

Some of the issues relating to gender identity that have already arisen overseas include parents prevented from removing their children from programs encouraging students to consider their gender identity, religious schools threatened with closure if they do not address issues of sexuality and gender identity in a government-approved manner, and the possibility of parents losing custody of their children if they refuse to affirm their child’s chosen gender identity.

These are just a few examples that could be used to demonstrate the problems that may arise when marriage is redefined – especially when it has been redefined without providing substantial protections for conscientious objectors.

How to provide substantial protections

The importance of providing conscience protections is affirmed not just by opponents of change but also by advocates for same-sex marriage such as US law professor Douglas Laycock and Liberal MP Tim Wilson.

Their support indicates that conscience protections should not be seen as excusing bigotry. Rather, they are a legitimate means of best promoting everyone’s welfare.

These protections are particularly appropriate considering that a failure to adequately protect conscientious objectors violates the right to equality. This is the very right that advocates of change assert to be of such importance to the issue of marriage equality (despite international human rights law declaring that the right is not violated by a country deciding against introducing same-sex marriage).

The right to equality under international human rights law clearly protects attributes such as religion and political opinion. Examples include Articles 2 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

A failure to protect conscientious objectors can be regarded as a violation of their right to equality. This is because it subjects them to discrimination based on their religion or political opinion.

The merits of providing such protections can also be supported on many other grounds. These include conscience rights, religious liberty, parental rights, privacy, freedom of association, the rights of children, and freedom of speech.

To provide effective protection to conscientious objectors, legislation redefining marriage should:

• permit individuals, companies and religious bodies to decline to facilitate a same-sex marriage or related celebration;

• protect the freedom of individuals to express their views about marriage;

• ensure government action does not inappropriately undermine parental duties; and

• prohibit discrimination by government bodies, companies and individuals against conscientious objectors.

Despite the importance of providing such protections, the failure of so many politicians to recognise that redefining marriage will cause Australians to suffer discrimination does not inspire confidence that these protections will be provided. If politicians won’t even recognise the potential for harm despite overwhelming evidence it is very unlikely that they will strongly advocate for comprehensive protections for conscientious objectors.

The probability of this outcome is indicated by the bills proposed this year and previously. These provided very limited protections for religious ministers, civil celebrants and religious organisations.

The failure of federal politicians to take seriously the legitimate concerns that people have about the consequences of changing our marriage laws may be one of the reasons why so many will be voting “no” at the upcoming postal ballot.

Greg Walsh, Senior Lecturer, School of Law, University of Notre Dame Australia

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The postal survey is both bizarre and typical in the history of Western marriage

Marriage reform of any kind has been historically slow to take hold.
Shutterstock

Timothy W. Jones, La Trobe University

The High Court’s decision to allow exceptional government spending on the marriage postal survey makes way for the latest bizarre, but typical, episode in the history of political responses to changing social attitudes to marriage.

The voluntary postal survey is unique and bizarre, in that no government has yet conducted such a statistically unreliable exercise in gauging public opinion on a contentious social issue. Yet it is typical, in that political responses to social change in areas of sex and morality are usually slow, fiercely contested, ideologically confused, but nonetheless important.

Political change in response to changes in social values is slow

The slow and strange political processes in Australia over the political recognition of same-sex marriages are actually typical of those around the world. The legislative histories of many previous changes to marriage law have been far longer and more drawn out than the recognition of same-sex marriage in Australia is likely to be.

One of the most contested changes in British marriage law was the now-obscure reform to allow a man to marry his deceased wife’s sister.

In an era of high maternal death and limited social welfare, it was common for deceased women’s sisters to marry their brothers-in-law and assume their sister’s role as wife and mother. The churches regarded such marriages as incestuous, and fiercely opposed law reform to legalise them. It took almost 70 years for this now forgotten reform to pass.

Reforms to permit divorce, interracial marriage and to administer traditional polygamous marriages were similarly contested and slow to be formed and reformed.

It should, therefore, not be a surprise that legislative reform in Australia to allow same-sex couples to marry is taking longer than a decade.

The complex relationship between religion, law and marriage

In some jurisdictions, in some times, religious institutions have legislated and adjudicated for marriage. This has never been the case in Australia. Between 1753 and 1836, the Church of England did enjoy sole political jurisdiction and administration of marriage in the British world.

However, from federation, Australian marriage law has always been secular. Religious organisations have made their own rulings about what marriage practices their own members should engage in. But while “churches, mosques or synagogues might bless nuptials, marriage itself is not a religious institution”.

Nor is it the law’s role in Australia to impose moral standards on society. Since at least 1971, when censorship law was reformed, lawmakers have sought to use legislation to enforce current community standards, rather than impose ideologically based absolutes.

The government’s ostensible rationale for the optional postal survey is actually in line with this norm: to assess community standards. Both proponents and – especially – opponents of change have been careful to frame their arguments in relation to shared community values.

Marriage equality is about more than marriage

The case for marriage law reform to allow same-sex couples to marry has been relatively simple and consistent around the world: a claim that to include same-sex couples in marriage will increase equality and social inclusion.

As this case has gained traction in the West, opponents of change have had to innovate in order to combat rapidly changing community standards.

As I have argued elsewhere, opponents of marriage law reform are primarily motivated by religious conviction. However, in a largely secular context, where moral values cannot easily be imposed on a population, “they are attempting to hide religious and moral arguments in the Trojan horse of health and human rights discourse”.

The “No” campaign has so far largely sidestepped the social justice argument of the “Yes” campaign. Instead, they have raised fears about children in rainbow families.

Conservatives have argued that children have a “right” to a mother and a father, and that same-sex parenting necessarily involves the “removal” of a child from one of its natural parents. These are innovative arguments.

Same-sex parenting is clearly not in contravention of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The right to a mother and a father is a completely novel human right for children, and one that is impossible to guarantee. And research clearly shows that children raised by same-sex parents show no different health or wellbeing outcomes to children raised by opposite-sex parents.

Similarly, when donor assisted reproduction became popular and was debated 70 years ago, governments and churches considered it at length. However, the major objection raised in these historical debates was that donor assistance in reproduction was equivalent to adultery.

Today, individuals and couples of all sexualities access assisted reproduction technology and have done so for many decades. Equating the donation of sperm or eggs to child removal is a completely novel argument.

As the postal survey goes ahead, we can expect to see more of these novel arguments from the “no” campaign. But it’s important to remember that legal change around marriage is historically slow, and that this debate is not about religious values, but community values. Specifically, it is about how we value LGBTI people, their relationships, and their families.

Timothy W. Jones, Senior Lecturer in History, La Trobe University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Revealed: who supports marriage equality in Australia – and who doesn’t

Increasing numbers of Australians agree with the notion of same-sex couples having the same rights as different-sex couples.
AAP/James Ross

Francisco Perales, The University of Queensland and Alice Campbell, The University of Queensland

Ahead of the postal plebiscite on marriage equality, much is being written about the relative chances of a “Yes” or “No” outcome, and the strategies both sides need to influence public opinion.

However, the bulk of the public debate seems to be based on intuitive or speculative perceptions of the traits of people who are likely to oppose or support marriage equality, or on anecdotal evidence.

We used data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey (HILDA) to assess trends in the degree of support for marriage equality, and to ascertain the characteristics of those Australians who do, or don’t, support it.

---

Further reading: Finding balance on marriage equality debate a particular challenge for the media

---

The data

In 2005, 2008, 2011 and 2015, the HILDA Survey asked its national panel to rate their degree of agreement with the statement “Homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples do” on a scale from one (strongly disagree) to seven (strongly agree).

The HILDA data have strengths and weaknesses compared to recent poll data. The drawbacks are that they are relatively old (July 2015-February 2016), and do not collect information about views on same-sex marriage specifically.

However, they are collected with much more statistical rigour (probability sampling, population representativeness), feature sample sizes that dwarf those of opinion polls (>15,000 respondents), and encompass rich demographic information.

Degree of support

We find a pronounced trend between 2005 and 2015 in the degree to which Australians agree with the notion of same-sex couples having the same rights as different-sex couples.

As seen below, the percentage of people who “strongly agree” (the highest point in the scale) rose from 19.2% in 2005 to 46.3% in 2015. In contrast, the percentage of people who “strongly disagree” (the lowest point) fell markedly from 26.7% in 2005 to 12.9% in 2015.

The percentage of people who chose any of the five intermediate responses either remained stable, or decreased slightly.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/kVXI5/2/

Defining agreement as response points five to seven on the “agree side” of the aforementioned question, the 2015 HILDA Survey reveals agreement rates of 66%, up from 39.8% in 2005.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/W2grP/1/

When agreement is defined as response options four to seven, the 2015 agreement rate grows to 78%.

Who supports equal rights?

Examination of the 2015 HILDA Survey data revealed marked differences in the degree of support for equal rights for same-sex couples across population subgroups.

Such support was significantly greater among:

• women;

• non-heterosexual (gay/lesbian, bisexual) people;

• younger people;

• people with degree-level or year 12 as their highest educational qualifications (compared to lower than year 12, or a professional qualification);

• non-religious people;

• people born in Australia or an English-speaking country (compared to people born in a non-English-speaking country);

• people with higher incomes; and

• people living in major cities (compared to those living in regional/remote areas).

Once these factors were accounted for, there were few and small differences across Australia’s states and territories.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/EmG5E/1/

Who sits on the fence?

About 12.4% of the 2015 HILDA Survey respondents selected the mid-point of the seven-category response scale when reporting on their agreement with the rights of same-sex couples.

This is an important portion of the Australian population. They represent those who may be swayed in either direction.

Examining their traits reveals these respondents were more likely to be men, heterosexual, older than 40, religious, to have below-year-12 education or professional qualifications, from a non-English-speaking background, in the bottom quartile of the income distribution, and from regional/remote areas of Australia.

Social change

The longitudinal nature of the HILDA Survey data enabled us to compare trends over time in support for the rights of same-sex couples between population segments.

Between 2005 and 2015, support rates increased across all of the population subgroups under scrutiny. This was even the case among groups that expressed the lowest levels of support.

For the most part, the group differences in support rates reported before remain reasonably constant over time. Interesting exceptions included a reduced “support premium” associated with holding university-level qualifications, and increasing religious disparities.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/mJNOl/3/

---

Further reading: To Christians arguing ‘no’ on marriage equality: the Bible is not decisive

---

What does all this mean?

The figures reveal an overwhelming tide of support toward the rights of same-sex couples within Australian society.

However, certain population groups are clearly lagging behind in their support. This includes male, older, and religious Australians, and those from non-English-speaking backgrounds. These same traits are also predictive of being undecided on the issue. This implies campaigners for a Yes vote should redouble efforts in putting forward arguments that appeal to these groups.

Even with a favourable outcome, the moral scrutiny to which the LGBT community is being subjected will likely have long-term negative consequences. Social friction and debates about the rights of same-sex couples are unlikely to disappear after the plebiscite. Our results point toward population groups that will need further convincing.

Francisco Perales, Senior Research Fellow (Institute for Social Science Research & Life Course Centre) and ARC DECRA Fellow, The University of Queensland and Alice Campbell, PhD Student, Life Course Centre and Institute for Social Science Research, The University of Queensland

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

USA: Persecution News Update

The links below are to articles reporting on persecution news from the USA.

For more visit:
– http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-you-should-know-about-the-kentucky-clerk-marriage-license-controversy
– http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/this-story-isnt-about-marriage
– http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html

Four Appeals to Christians Embracing Gay Marriage

I was not particularly surprised by the Supreme Court’s decision last Friday. Nor do I feel alarmist about it. Some Christians are responding to it in doomsday tones, but to my mind that attitude is at odds with the basic tenor of the gospel. Panic and pessimism are out of order for a worldview anchored in belief in an omnipotent God, irresistible grace, and an eternal heaven.

On the other hand, how a society defines the institution of marriage is important. For me, it is too important to remain silent—particularly because so many Christians I know are joining in to celebrate the Court’s ruling. My Facebook news feed has been lit up over the last several days with two basic types of articles, coming from various different circles of friends that Esther and I have made over the years: some disappointed and basically asking “now what?”; others exultant and proclaiming…

View original post 2,520 more words

Polyamory: The Next Progression

The current ‘marriage equality’ debate, is really a debate about a redefining of what marriage is. From a Christian perspective there is no debate as the Bible is clear on the issue and so for Christians there is no change no matter what may or may not happen around us. What happens in the world happens there and that is not something the church has a say over in real terms. Certainly God does have something to say about it and he has said it through the Scriptures to the world today. Whatever happens in that world outside of Christianity, the Christian definition of marriage will never change, regardless of the pressure that may or may not be brought to bear upon it and/or the church of Christ.

It would seem to me that the next logical step – the next progression for relationships in the civil marriage/relationship space, but not necessarily with those seeking same-sex civil marriage legality, would be the polyamory culture that appears to be growing out there in the world.

For more on ployamory see:
– http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/apr/25/polyamory-more-than-one-lover-emer-otoole
– http://archermagazine.com.au/2014/03/five-steps-to-successful-polyamory/
– http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-sexual-revolution-polyamory/
– http://www.huffingtonpost.com/angi-becker-stevens/polyamorous-relationships_b_4370026.html
– http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/07/multiple-lovers-no-jealousy/374697/

More Articles on Tony Campolo’s Support for Gay Marriage

The links below are to articles commenting on Tony Campolo’s support for gay marriage.

For more visit:
– http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/06/a-day-late-a-dollar-short
– http://www.albertmohler.com/2015/06/10/which-way-evangelicals-there-is-nowhere-to-hide/

Tony Campolo Joins the Gay Acceptance Camp

The link below is to an article reporting on American Tony Campolo’s acceptance of gay marriage in the church.

For more visit:
http://christiannews.net/2015/06/13/former-christianity-today-editor-praises-tony-campolos-call-for-full-acceptance-of-homosexuals/