Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

explod · 12 March 2018

wayneL said:
It's a complicated topic but, if you would like to give us your vision of a postmodern future and we can create a discussion around there please go ahead

Agree, I believe it could be well worth its own thread and have the potential to draw newcomers if set right. I'll put some thought into that and feel free to jump the gun.

Tisme · 12 March 2018

basilio said:
I don't know Tisme. But probably only a fraction of those destroyed by sociopathetic, alpha males who delight in trolling/destroying anyone they can get away with to prove how tough they are.

Apart from yourself, name a few.

Tisme · 6 April 2018

Mark Latham's Outsiders shared NSW Justices Association Inc's post.
2 hrs ·
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND THE LOSS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

One of the unresolved issues when Malcolm Turnbull pushed through his Same-Sex Marriage Act last year was religious freedom. Would people who object to same-sex marriage according to their strongly-held religious beliefs be disadvantaged by the new definition of marriage?

Turnbull and Bill Shorten said this would not be the case. I said it would be wrong for governments to punish people for believing in traditional man-woman marriage. No one should be forced by government into doing things they regard as morally wrong.

In truth, the new legislation did not protect religious freedom. This has now become clear. Have a look at this notice by the NSW Justices Association (representing tens of thousands of JPs). It passes on instructions from the NSW Department of Justice, as follows:

"Refusing to witness a Commonwealth Notice of Intention to Marry on the basis that the two signatories on the form are of the same sex even if that refusal was on religious grounds, would amount to unlawful discrimination under anti-discrimination legislation." It goes on to say that Justices of the Peace who refuse to witness for gay couples will be suspended or sacked.

This is heavy stuff. JPs can have genuine religious beliefs objecting to same-sex marriage, yet they can be prosecuted (for breaking discrimination laws) and/or lose their position serving the community. It is a shocking denial of religious freedom.

Unfortunately, when parliament passed the Turnbull/Shorten gay marriage law, Australia moved one step closer to the powers of a police state.

NSW Justices Association Inc
April 4 at 1:42pm ·

The NSW Justices Association Inc has received the following communication from the Appointments Services, Department of Justice. A copy of this communication has been sent via email to all NSWJA members and is posted here for your information.

-------------------------
JPs appointed in NSW can witness the Commonwealth Notice of Intention to Marry document pursuant to s42 of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth).

Refusing to witness a Notice of Intention to Marry on the basis that the two signatories on the form are of the same sex even if that refusal was on religious grounds, would amount to unlawful discrimination under anti-discrimination legislation.

The Code of Conduct for JPs provides that a JP must not ‘unreasonably refuse to provide a justice of the peace services.’ In this context, any refusal that breaches the law would be considered an unreasonable refusal under the Code of Conduct.

Accordingly, JPs appointed in NSW must not refuse to witness a Notice of Intention to Marry on the basis that the two signatories on the form were of the same sex. Any such refusal would be a breach of the JP Code of Conduct and constitute grounds for review of that JP’s appointment which may lead to their suspension or removal as a JP.

Regards
Bruce Sanders| Assistant Appointments Officer
Appointments Services| Ministerial and Parliamentary Services | Department of Justice

satanoperca · 6 April 2018

This is great new Tisme, finally we are being governed not by religion but by equality.

Thanks for pointing this great leap forward towards a more harmonious society, finally you provided some facts worthy of noting.

Cheers to you.

Tisme · 6 April 2018

satanoperca said:
This is great new Tisme, finally we are being governed not by religion but by equality.

Thanks for pointing this great leap forward towards a more harmonious society, finally you provided some facts worthy of noting.

Cheers to you.

I'm sure you will find everything I post is factual, it's how it fits with your personal bias that pleases or displeases you; still the facts remain.

wayneL · 6 April 2018

satanoperca said:
This is great new Tisme, finally we are being governed not by religion but by equality.

Thanks for pointing this great leap forward towards a more harmonious society, finally you provided some facts worthy of noting.

Cheers to you.

Lord forgive him, for he knows not what he says.( with apologies to the author of Luke)

bellenuit · 6 April 2018

satanoperca said:
This is great new Tisme, finally we are being governed not by religion but by equality.

I agree. Those who hold public office should not be allowed discriminate because of their religious beliefs.

"Refusing to witness a Commonwealth Notice of Intention to Marry on the basis that the two signatories on the form are of the same sex even if that refusal was on religious grounds, would amount to unlawful discrimination under anti-discrimination legislation." It goes on to say that Justices of the Peace who refuse to witness for gay couples will be suspended or sacked.

This is exactly like that marriage registrar (or was it celebrant) in the US that refused to register/perform a civil ceremony on religious grounds. She is employed to do a job and that job should be performed without regards to the religion, colour, ethnicity or gender orientation of the person or persons taking part in the ceremony. If the celebrant/JP/registrar feel so strongly about not wanting to perform the act that they have been employed and paid to do, they should resign.

The celebrant/JP/registrar is not being discriminated against. They are being prevented discriminating against others. Religious freedom means you are allowed to practice your religion without fear of prosecution. It doesn't mean you can deny others their rights.

Tink · 6 April 2018

Our Parliament has the Lord's Prayer.

That is public office.

basilio · 6 April 2018

bellenuit said:
The celebrant/JP/registrar is not being discriminated against. They are being prevented discriminating against others. Religious freedom means you are allowed to practice your religion without fear of prosecution. It doesn't mean you can deny others their rights.

That is far too clear sighted for this thread Bellenuit. Your just showing off aren't you...!

wayneL · 6 April 2018

One can always find a compliant jp bellanuit, so no rights have been denied. It is becoming dangerously close to government mandated behaviour, such as is the case with bill c16.in Canada.

IE you WILL marry gays, removing abstinence as a fundamental right.

If I was a jp, Christian, Muslim, or not, I would hand in my stripes forthwith.

bellenuit · 6 April 2018

wayneL said:
One can always find a compliant jp bellanuit, so no rights have been denied.

Of course rights have been denied. You have a right to marry and someone who is employed by the state and paid to perform marriages says you have to find someone else. The very fact that you have to look elsewhere when a hetero couple does not is an infringement of your rights.

It is becoming dangerously close to government mandated behaviour

Yes, government is mandating that you do not deny others their lawful rights.

If I was a jp, Christian, Muslim, or not, I would hand in my stripes forthwith.

Good. So let someone who is prepared not to discriminate and will obey the law have the job.

How would you feel if you were white and were denied the right to marry a black person in a civil ceremony because the celebrant didn't believe in mixed marriages?

wayneL · 7 April 2018

bellenuit said:
Of course rights have been denied. You have a right to marry and someone who is employed by the state and paid to perform marriages says you have to find someone else. The very fact that you have to look elsewhere when a hetero couple does not is an infringement of your rights.

Yes, government is mandating that you do not deny others their lawful rights.

Good. So let someone who is prepared not to discriminate and will obey the law have the job.

How would you feel if you were white and were denied the right to marry a black person in a civil ceremony because the celebrant didn't believe in mixed marriages?

Dude, as a white, middle aged hetro male, there are hundreds of jobs that are closed to me. Thank god I have my own business otherwise I would be virtually unemployable.

So don't talk to me about discrimination. Discrimination is alive and well in the identity politics, pc world.

As it happens I personally have no problem in my business. Holy 5hit, the horse world is full of same sex couples and many of my clients are gay, as long a they're nice people I don't give a crap.

But you know who I do discriminate against?

Post modernists. As soon as they espouse the type of crap quoted, I sack them immediately because they are monumental hypocrites.

Tink · 7 April 2018

If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under.

Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.

- Ronald Reagan
----------------------

Faith, Family, Truth, Freedom.

Tisme · 7 April 2018

wayneL said:
Lord forgive him, for he knows not what he says.( with apologies to the author of Luke)

When natural collides with synthetic polution.

There's skin in the game so an obligation to regurgitate the rote learned memetics adolescents demand of grown ups these days.

A previously hidden world of buttercups, unicorns and toadstool houses, where society is full of marxist drones doing good things for the purposely dysfunctional. Who wouldn't give up freedoms for that!

Tisme · 7 April 2018

basilio said:
That is far too clear sighted for this thread Bellenuit. Your just showing off aren't you...!

Farsighted doesn't mean you don't see a mirage.

Tisme · 7 April 2018

bellenuit said:
I agree. Those who hold public office should not be allowed discriminate because of their religious beliefs........

The celebrant/JP/registrar is not being discriminated against. They are being prevented discriminating against others. Religious freedom means you are allowed to practice your religion without fear of prosecution. It doesn't mean you can deny others their rights.

So it's OK for our elected leaders to bareface lie as excuse to pass legislation they deem in the public (electoral) interest? There were guarantees given for the greater good and they have been for nought, but you think that is acceptable so long as it fits your personal view that e.g. JPs (non public servants) should be robotic drones doing the bidding of a centralised political machine, hardly the reason JPs existed in the first instance?

Perhaps that is the way to go, get rid of all subjectivity and hand over all govt transactions to interoperability and do away with humans altogether.

bellenuit · 7 April 2018

Tisme said:
So it's OK for our elected leaders to bareface lie as excuse to pass legislation they deem in the public (electoral) interest? There were guarantees given for the greater good and they have been for nought, but you think that is acceptable so long as it fits your personal view that e.g. JPs (non public servants) should be robotic drones doing the bidding of a centralised political machine, hardly the reason JPs existed in the first instance?

Perhaps that is the way to go, get rid of all subjectivity and hand over all govt transactions to interoperability and do away with humans altogether.

Complete non-sequitor.

SirRumpole · 7 April 2018

Surely there is more than one official who can do the job of authorising a marriage ? If one doesn't want to do it for religious reasons then they could delegate to someone else.

satanoperca · 7 April 2018

Tisme said:
So it's OK for our elected leaders to bareface lie as excuse to pass legislation they deem in the public (electoral) interest? There were guarantees given for the greater good and they have been for nought, but you think that is acceptable so long as it fits your personal view that e.g. JPs (non public servants) should be robotic drones doing the bidding of a centralised political machine, hardly the reason JPs existed in the first instance?

Perhaps that is the way to go, get rid of all subjectivity and hand over all govt transactions to interoperability and do away with humans altogether.

Even for you Tisme, this is a little OTT.

You seem to be losing your touch, maybe up your medication so your thoughts can become clearer again.

Tisme · 9 April 2018

bellenuit said:
Complete non-sequitor.

How so? You'd have to have to leave most of logic on the cutting room floor to come to that statement.

Same sex marriage - Yes or No?