Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

[watchdog11]

How does a gay couple getting married, being recognised as legally married, "destroy" anyone's lives? I mean beside the other gay lover whose love weren't returned and such.

And just because most relationship, marriages failed doesn't mean we shouldn't try having a relationship or a marriage. And it definitely does not mean anyone has the right to ban others consenting adults from entering into their doom either.

You are missing the point. The gay marriage push is trying to make it illegal for a church not to marry gays, even though it is agains their religion. Would you pass a law forcing Muslims to eat pork against their religion?

Teaching young pre-pubescent children that they should decide if they want a change of gender, IS impacting other people's lives and NOT just the gay couple that got married. Passing legislation to stop anyone having an opinion not in line with the gay ideology also effects others (who are vilified, boycotted, fined, jailed or sacked from work).

When our children are reprimanded in school for referring to their Mum as "Mum" in case it offends some gays, THAT impacts everyone! When the gays want to abolish gender reference in the language, ban Father's Day and Mother's Day - that impacts everyone too.

Now days, no-one straight, is forcing gays to do or not to say anything, so why the reverse?

Gays already have complete equality in the sight of the law, so this plebiscite is NOT about equality at all!

 

[watchdog11]

Today in The Australian, Paul Kelly brilliantly articulates 'Why [the] YES case is shoddy'.

No article better explains how politicians are wilfully misleading voters when it comes to changing the Marriage Act.

-----

With the Yes case positioned to win the postal plebiscite, it is more important than ever the misleading and false claims of its advocates — that there is no religious issue at stake — be confronted and the ramifications put on the table.

These claims are made by senior Coalition and Labor politicians. Indeed, it seems they think rejection of the religious argument is fundamental to the success of their campaign. This is alarming because it implies the Yes case depends on persuading the public of a false proposition.

The government and parliament, despite years of emotional debate, declined to address the wider religious freedom question. The political class engaged instead in a great pretence: that the only such issue concerned the wedding ceremony and protections in the Marriage Act for clergy and celebrants, an extremely narrow view of religious freedom.

Given legalisation of same-sex marriage means the laws of the state and laws of most religions will be brought into direct conflict over society’s most essential institution, the one certainty is ongoing legal and political trench warfare over the balance between acceptance of the same-sex marriage norm and the scope for freedom of belief and religion.

There is a litany of examples from the overseas experience. Fatuous remarks that “the world hasn’t come to an end” in countries that have legislated same-sex marriage are just that — and designed to deceive.

Having refused to confront the issue the advocates of the Yes case now get agitated and self-righteous when it has become an issue in the plebiscite. This was inevitable. While some aspects of the No case are obnoxious, its warnings about religious freedoms risks are entirely valid. What matters is that the many highly intelligent political champions of the Yes case are trapped: they are selling a shoddy intellectual bill of goods and many of them know it.

The first point is that religious freedom guarantees in this country are inadequate. This was agreed and documented in February’s Senate select committee report. Unlike many Western nations, Australia has no statutory expression of a stand-alone right to religious freedom. There are far greater legal protections in relation to sexual orientation than in relation to religious belief.

This is an anomaly given that under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights freedom of religion is an inviolable right. The risk now is our parliament undermining Australia’s commitment to the ICCPR.

Evidence presented to the Senate committee shows that statutory protection of religious belief is weak both in federal law and a number of states. It mainly exists as “exemptions” from anti-discrimination law. The Anglican Diocese of Sydney made the obvious point to the committee that this failed to treat freedom of belief and religion as a fundamental human right. Marriage Alliance said: “We submit that religious freedom is a fundamental human right (and) that framing a debate in terms of exemptions misunderstands this fact.”

There was strong support in submissions for parliament to legislate to enshrine religious guarantees as a protected attribute in federal anti-discrimination law. This is the pivotal point. The committee unanimously agreed there was a “need to enhance current protections for religious freedom”. The Human Rights Law Centre said: “Religious freedom should be protected in law. Indeed, we are on record in a number of inquiries supporting the addition of religious belief to protections under federal anti-discrimination law.”

Committee chairman Liberal David Fawcett warned that “if Australia is to remain a plural, tolerant society where different views are valued and legal” then such action on religious freedom is essential. What was the reaction of the Turnbull government and Labor to the Senate report?

It varied between disregard and contempt. The reason is apparent — politics. Labor has abandoned any interest in addressing the inadequacy of religious protection laws with its embrace of the LGBTI cause. As for the Coalition, the story is the weakness of its conservative caucus. The deeper point is the churches are vulnerable and the politicians know it.

The lamentable situation was summarised by the University of Sydney’s Patrick Parkinson: “There have been numerous bills introduced into parliament to enact same-sex marriage over the last few years and what has been common to most of them has been a minimalist protection for freedom of conscience.”

The second core conclusion is that this battle over rights will continue after same-sex marriage is legislated. In Denmark the Lutheran Church has had its rights restricted. The Swedish PM has said priests should no more be allowed to refuse to marry same-sex couples than medical professionals should be exempt from abortion procedures. The Speaker of the British House of Commons says “proper equal marriage” won’t happen until the churches are compelled to obey by law. Australian Greens formally say they want the religious exemptions in anti-discrimination law to be wound back. Many in the ALP left have the same view.

We are being put on notice. You would have to be politically blind to deny the reality (an option many politicians have deliberately chosen). The post-same-sex marriage battle is already under way. This is because while many people genuinely see same-sex marriage as an issue of non-discrimination, this was never its essence. It is an ideological cause seeking fundamental changes in Western society, laws and norms. It will continue apace after the law is changed.

Marriage equality is an ideology and ideologies, by nature, do not settle for compromise victories. As Benjamin Law says in Quarterly Essay: Moral Panic 101: “It might be stating the obvious but same-sex marriage is far from the final frontier in the battle against homophobia.” The struggle will continue — in schools and in institutions. Law says the two biggest LGBTI issues are Safe Schools and same-sex marriage.

He says Safe Schools is “supposed to discomfort people” by up-ending how we see gender and sexuality. He talks about exploding accepted norms with queer theory, inviting “people to reconsider why anyone should be obliged to identify as female or male at all”. The aim is to introduce Safe Schools across the country and make it compulsory.

The pretence by Yes case politicians that the plebiscite has no consequences for the Safe Schools program treats us like fools. Legislation of same-sex marriage will tilt the scales decisively in this struggle between sexual rights and religious freedom. This legal and cultural change will influence decision-makers everywhere — public servants, corporates, media and educational institutions.

The churches will remain a prime target and the fact their protections are weak makes them highly vulnerable once the assault gains momentum.

The Yes case bases its campaign on human rights but misses the exquisite irony that you cannot cherry-pick human rights and keep your integrity. As Parkinson said, consistency of principle means those who justify their campaign on human rights need to give proper consideration to how rights can be balanced.

That hasn’t happened in Australia, not even remotely. Every sign is Australia will legalise same-sex marriage devoid of any serious attention to religious freedom issues and, as a result, religious protections will be exposed and sacrificed.

The politicians are doing this because they think they can get away with it. They are entitled to that judgment. What they are not entitled to is a gross deception. The assurances they give on religious protection are worthless — their inaction proves that. People, regardless of how it affects their vote, need to know the reality.

Paul Kelly, The Australian

 

[luutzu]

You are missing the point. The gay marriage push is trying to make it illegal for a church not to marry gays, even though it is agains their religion. Would you pass a law forcing Muslims to eat pork against their religion?

Teaching young pre-pubescent children that they should decide if they want a change of gender, IS impacting other people's lives and NOT just the gay couple that got married. Passing legislation to stop anyone having an opinion not in line with the gay ideology also effects others (who are vilified, boycotted, fined, jailed or sacked from work).

When our children are reprimanded in school for referring to their Mum as "Mum" in case it offends some gays, THAT impacts everyone! When the gays want to abolish gender reference in the language, ban Father's Day and Mother's Day - that impacts everyone too.

Now days, no-one straight, is forcing gays to do or not to say anything, so why the reverse?

Gays already have complete equality in the sight of the law, so this plebiscite is NOT about equality at all!

Businesses, and that includes the Church and other places of worship, should not be able to discriminate based on gender identity. We're all God's children, right?

For an anti-discrimination law to permit certain group to discriminate based on "their values" or "their religious teaching"... then what's the law for?

And it's not the same as forcing people to eat what they don't like.

No on is asking Christians or any of those religion and religious leaders/people to become gay. Just simply served a gay couple as they would any other couple who, for some reason, decided to have a grudging God as Witness to their marriage. Maybe it's not all out of spite... just some people are seriously religious, gay or otherwise.

I don't know where that ban on "Mum" or Father's Day stuff is from. If true, that's rubbish and we shouldn't take it seriously. There are gay idiots out there too.

As to teachings pre-pubescent kids about sex and gender identity... you know you can't turn a kid gay by exposing them to the idea of gayness. And you'd want to teach kids about sexuality BEFORE they reach the stage, not way after it.

Our teachers are quite sensible... they wn't be teachings sex-ed to kindy kids if that's the concern.

 

[SirRumpole]

Businesses, and that includes the Church and other places of worship, should not be able to discriminate based on gender identity. We're all God's children, right?

So what is discrimination really ? If person A and Person B are equally suited to a job in a religious organisation, but A is gay and B is not, what criteria do you believe the employer should use to decide who gets the job ?

Either way one of them is going to be unhappy.

 

[cynic]

So what is discrimination really ? If person A and Person B are equally suited to a job in a religious organisation, but A is gay and B is not, what criteria do you believe the employer should use to decide who gets the job ?

Either way one of them is going to be unhappy.

Yes! But one of them will still always be gay, so might as well make the other bloke happy, unless of course, it happens to be a religion that was designed by gays, for gays!

 

[luutzu]

So what is discrimination really ? If person A and Person B are equally suited to a job in a religious organisation, but A is gay and B is not, what criteria do you believe the employer should use to decide who gets the job ?

Either way one of them is going to be unhappy.

That kind of questions should be send straight to the legal department. They're paid to dance around the legal code if that's what God ordered done.

 

[SirRumpole]

That kind of questions should be send straight to the legal department. They're paid to dance around the legal code if that's what God ordered done.

So you have no opinion ? What would you do ?

Anyway, as far as I am aware a lot of religious organisations employ gay people, they just don't like exhibitions of gayness or pro gay proselytising while they are on the job.

Similar for a lot of organisations like universities who employ Christians but don't like Creation Science being taught in biology classes.

 

[luutzu]

Yes! But one of them will still always be gay, so might as well make the other bloke happy, unless of course, it happens to be a religion that was designed by gays, for gays!

All religions are designed by gays. Think about it.

God Almighty is single. Create life all by himself, in his image.

The Buddha was a prince, has a harem full of women and a beautiful princess as wife child bearing. Then ran away in the night "to find enlightenment", all by himself, not being persuaded by the devil and his enticements with beautiful women...

And they all hate gays.

I mean, who else but a bunch of repressed homosexuals would come up with that trash.

[correction: the dieties might or might not hate gays. It's their representative on Earth that interprets it that way].

 

[luutzu]

So you have no opinion ? What would you do ?

Anyway, as far as I am aware a lot of religious organisations employ gay people, they just don't like exhibitions of gayness or pro gay proselytising while they are on the job.

Similar for a lot of organisations like universities who employ Christians but don't like Creation Science being taught in biology classes.

Depends.

There's no such thing as both person being equally qualified/capable. Not perfectly equally. That and some job/work might favour one person over another, with their gayness or straightness being either a plus or a minus depends on the job... not their sexuality/gender, but the attribute such gender would, maybe, show up in their behaviour.

That and I'll call a panel together. That way I won't be the only idiot getting sue if the outcome favour one over another.

 

[Wysiwyg]

So what is discrimination really?

Bias toward a person or group based on Race, Religion, Gender, Age and the biggy, Sexual Preference. Note they blocked me out of this photo. I had a placard written "Equal Pay for Equal Work".

1969: Equal Pay rally at the Trades Hall, Carlton, Victoria

 

[cynic]

That kind of questions should be send straight to the legal department. They're paid to dance around the legal code if that's what God ordered done.

Easier still, why not just direct the gay guy to take two stone tablets, read the ten inscribed aramaic instructions before swallowing, and if gaiety persists more than 40 days and 40 nights, be sure to consult the family rabbi.

All religions are designed by gays. Think about it.

God Almighty is single. Create life all by himself, in his image.

The Buddha was a prince, has a harem full of women and a beautiful princess as wife child bearing. Then ran away in the night "to find enlightenment", all by himself, not being persuaded by the devil and his enticements with beautiful women...

And they all hate gays.

I mean, who else but a bunch of repressed homosexuals would come up with that trash.

It seems you have heard of neither hermaphrodites nor amoeba!

P.S. Where the FTSE did you buy your degree!

( I didn't realise that flea markets were selling university qualifications!)

 

[luutzu]

Easier still, why not just direct the gay guy to take two stone tablets, read the ten inscribed aramaic instructions before swallowing, and if gaiety persists more than 40 days and 40 nights, be sure to consult the family rabbi.

It seems you have heard of neither hermaphrodites nor amoeba!

P.S. Where the FTSE did you buy your degree!

( I didn't realise that flea markets were selling university qualifications!)

There are lots of things I haven't heard, lots of things I don't know (obviously )... does that mean I'm as Climate Change "sceptic"?

You don't need uni when you got YouTube buddy. That and yea, the first uni I went to was kinda like a flea market... went to a second, fancier uni with limestone buildings and big names... they're both the same, just more expensive at the latter.

Lesson was, if a person have access to a library and can stand to read the books in it, they too can write big sentences no one can understand

 

[pixel]

Who really gives a **** about Issy's opinion.

So true, Mac.
That's the problem with social media: Every twit and every face with a facebook account can claim to be an expert in anything and everything. If one has been seen on TV once or twice, or demonstrated skill in a field that's remotely considered entertaining, "followers" devour every tweet and take it, starry-eyed, as Gospel. Doesn't matter whether the person's claim to fame comes from looks alone, or another physical "skill". The skill be requiring less than two functioning brain cells; they can have flunked every school test since kindy, but they're celebrities and everything they utter counts - even if it's utter rubbish.

 

[grah33]

Businesses, and that includes the Church and other places of worship, should not be able to discriminate based on gender identity. We're all God's children, right?

Christian theology doesn't work like that. It's one man , one female. You have so much knowledge elsewhere, but can't seem to discern something basic here. Their loyalty would be to God first, so they couldn't serve them. You would have to prove there is no God first, which can't be done. And yes it is like eating pork (for a jew) - the action would be 'unclean' to them.

 

[PZ99]

You would have to prove there is no God first, which can't be done.

His absence from this thread is a good starting point. Couldn't find him on farcebook either

Maybe the financial realm ? "Your search - ASX:god - produced no matches" Nup, no dice

 

[Triathlete]

 

[wayneL]

Okay I have a question. Much has been made of Howard changing the marriage act in 2004 to make it man and woman.

Why then was there no ssm previous to that?

 

[basilio]

Changing the marriage Act to allow SSM is a change of the civil law. How about looking a the analysis of a Senior Law Lecturer who can establish what the legal realities are around our current Marriage Laws and teh poposed change.

We need more analysis and less emotion in the marriage equality debate
From religious freedom to infringing rights, if we apply principled reasoning to the same-sex marriage debate, most opposing arguments don’t stack up



‘In any event, the entire religious freedom argument suffers from a fatal flaw: Unlike in the case of a religious celebrant performing a sacrament, the sale of a cake is not a religious act.’ Photograph: Rui Vieira/PA

Shares
851

Comments
18
Bede Harris

Thursday 14 September 2017 07.31 BST Last modified on Thursday 14 September 2017 08.09 BST

The debate on marriage equality has been strong on emotion but short on principled analysis. What foundations should guide us in determining this question?

First and foremost is the principle of individual autonomy in relation to personal choices, which is a value that lies – or ought to lie – at the foundation of a free society. This principle was famously applied more than 50 years ago in the United States in the decision of Griswold v Connecticut. In that case, the supreme court struck down the law prohibiting the sale of contraceptives. The court said that people have a right to privacy, in the sense of a “zone of autonomy”, regarding intimate life choices. The court held that the more intimate the area, the less justification there was for the state to interfere. Clearly the choice of marriage partner is among the most intimate one can make, and in 2015 the court applied the same principle to invalidate laws restricting marriage to heterosexual couples.

Apart from intruding on autonomy, the prohibition on same-sex marriage discriminates on grounds of sexual orientation. At its base, marriage is simply a contract licensed by the state. Discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in relation to whom one may marry is therefore as offensive as would be discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in relation to registering a transfer of land. Or, to put it differently, what principled difference is there between restricting whom one may marry on grounds of sexual orientation and restricting choice of marriage partners on racial grounds, as under apartheid in South Africa?

What of the arguments raised by opponents of marriage equality that its legalisation would cause harms or infringe other rights?

We can dismiss the bizarre argument that by recognising same-sex marriage the institution of heterosexual marriage would be harmed. A rational basis for this argument has never been presented, and it is difficult to see how it could be – unless its proponents believe that the opportunity to contract a same-sex marriage would somehow entice people away from heterosexual unions, a line of reasoning which would be valid only if one believed that sexual orientation was chosen rather than innate.

The second circumstance which needs to be considered is the argument that respect for freedom of religion requires that business people be entitled to decline involvement in same-sex unions. Liberal (now Conservative) senator Cory Bernardi said that all businesses should be able to discriminate “for any or no reason” (including against same-sex couples), while Liberal National MP, George Christensen, said that venue owners, bakers and photographers should have the right to refuse custom to same-sex couples. Does this argument have any validity?

First, the freedom of religion argument cuts both ways: Among the clauses in the freedom of religion provisions contained in s 116 of the constitution is one prohibiting the establishment of any religion. Compliance with this requires that the state be secular in its approach to public policy. Restricting marriage to different-sex couples reflects a particular religious perspective, and thus imposes a religious view on others, contrary to s 116. It is therefore the prohibition of same-sex marriage, not its legalisation, which constitutes a denial of religious freedom.

Leaving aside religious celebrants, who would not be compelled to marry same-sex couples under any of the bills presented to parliament – what of the argument that religious freedom requires that people be able to refuse services to same-sex couples?

A case of this type recently arose in the United States: The owner of a wedding cake shop refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple. The Colorado court found that the shop owner had breached state law which prohibits discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in places of “public accommodation” – broadly defined as any place where a business offers goods or services to the public.

The case has now been appealed to the US supreme court, where it is likely to fail. This is because, in a line of cases from the civil rights era, courts in the US have pointed the affront to dignity that is caused by discrimination and have upheld laws making it unlawful for businesses to discriminate on prohibited grounds such as race, gender, disability and sexual orientation. The mere fact that these cases involved contractual relationships did not immunise them from the reach of anti-discrimination law. In other words, although mutual agreement lies at the heart of contracts, which can therefore be said to be “private” in nature, once a business offers goods or services to the public, it steps into the public arena and breaches equality rights if it discriminates on a prohibited ground. For this reason, the argument that the religious beliefs of a person engaging in public commerce entitle them to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation has no more validity than did the argument, also rejected by the supreme court, that the right to hold segregationist political beliefs entitled business owners to refuse custom to African Americans in restaurants or bus stations.

In any event, the entire religious freedom argument suffers from a fatal flaw: Unlike in the case of a religious celebrant performing a sacrament, the sale of a cake is not a religious act. That is why non-religious marriage celebrants, cake-makers, photographers and limousine drivers ought not to be allowed to discriminate in the provision of what are simply commercial services. Unless a business were to offer its services only to members of a particular religion, there is no consideration of conscience which logically justifies discrimination against people on the ground of their sexual orientation.

In Australia, anti-discrimination law prohibits discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation as well as on grounds of marital and relationship status. It also prohibits discrimination in the provision of goods, services and facilities and so would prohibit businesses from engaging in discrimination against same-sex couples. This is as it should be – and this is what opponents of marriage equality are trying to reverse.

Bede Harris is senior lecturer in law at Charles Sturt University
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-less-emotion-in-the-marriage-equality-debate

 

[overhang]

Okay I have a question. Much has been made of Howard changing the marriage act in 2004 to make it man and woman.

Why then was there no ssm previous to that?

Because it was a legal loophole, all though in Australia a SS couple couldn't be married in the eye of the law there was no provision to say that SS marriages overseas wouldn't be recognised in Australia. This had never been an issue prior because no country had legalised SSM.

 

[overhang]

Freedom of speech, not in the eyes of the church

A Victorian church refused to marry a young couple and cancelled their wedding plans because the bride-to-be expressed support for same-sex marriage on Facebook. The 26-year-old bride and 25-year-old groom were to be married in November at their Presbyterian church, Ebenezer St John's in Ballarat, by minister Steven North.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...gay-marriage-on-facebook-20170913-gygcyp.html