No Religious protections with same sex marriage
International precedent demonstrates that the legalisation of same-sex marriage can change the nature of marriage itself from a natural institution with social ends to an activist institution with political ends. It can herald a profound transformation of society by making the most pre-political institution a servant of the PC state.
Wherever the state has codified neo-Marxist minority politics in discrimination law, the institution of marriage is gradually subordinated to the dictates of political correctness. In the context of codified neo-Marxism, the legalisation of same-sex marriage is not what it seems. Instead of creating equality, it can create inequality by empowering the persecution of dissenters from PC politics.
In the Western world, dozens of cases have been brought against private enterprises, religious organisations or individuals by same-sex marriage activists. Some are reasonable in a secular society. Others are anti-religious bigotry masquerading as equality. In the UK, for example, the Equality Commission funded activist Gareth Lee’s case against a Northern Irish baker who wouldn’t write the political slogan “support gay marriage” on a cake. In my view, that is state-funded prosecution of a political dissident.
The legalisation of same-sex marriage can give PC activists a new, taxpayer-funded power to prosecute those who disagree with them. While attacks on free speech may be an unintended consequence of same-sex marriage, they are so pervasive that Liberals should have prepared legislation accordingly. Yet many Yes campaigners deny the threat that marriage reform poses to freedom of speech and religion. Speaking to The Australian, Liberal Party president Nick Greiner said: “The necessary religious protections for ministers of religion, religious marriage celebrants, and use of church grounds and services, will be assured … Such freedoms are at the forefront of legislation drafted by senator Dean Smith and MPs Tim Wilson, Warren Entsch, Trent Zimmerman and Trevor Evans.”
Freedom of speech is not protected in the Liberals’ draft bill. If LGBTQI marriage is legalised without sufficient protections for freedom of speech and religion, it will establish an oppressive regime that will become more so under Labor.
Earlier this year, Opposition legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus foreshadowed the extension of PC censorship under notorious 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act to sexual orientation.
We know that freedom of speech will be affected by marriage reform after the fact because it has been attacked before the fact. Greens candidate Martine Delaney lodged a complaint against Catholic Archbishop of Hobart Julian Porteous for a booklet supporting traditional marriage. Porteous ultimately won the case, but had to defend free speech on marriage to the satisfaction of Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Tribunal.
Activists have attacked numerous individuals to censor free speech that dissents from the PC line on same-sex marriage. Last year, church leaders were prevented from meeting at the Mercure Hotel in Sydney after queer activists threatened hotel staff. In December, a man drove a van into the Australian Christian Lobby office. It has come to light that the accused, Jaden Duong, allegedly told police he disliked the ACL because of its “position on sexuality”.
This year, activists called for a boycott of Coopers beer after a video featuring Liberal MPs drinking Coopers while discussing diverse views on same-sex marriage aired. Last week, GP Pansy Lai was attacked by activists who called for her deregistration after she went public to support traditional marriage.
There is little protection for traditional marriage supporters in the draft bill. The religious protections are limited to ministers or religious marriage celebrants and bodies that can prove their stance on marriage conforms to anti-discrimination law. The lack of protections leaves dissenters from LGBTQI marriage vulnerable to hate speech, harassment, boycotts and lawfare.
People who understand the capital importance of religious freedom to liberal democracy should consider their options in relation to voting on marriage reform. Some might simply vote No in the postal survey. A second option is to introduce a positive right to religious freedom along with the new right to LGBTQI marriage. A third option for legal exemptions was prepared by the Wilberforce Foundation in its submission to the government committee on the exposure draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill. However, it was excluded from the Liberals’ same-sex marriage bill.
There is a sound proposal which is largely absent from the current debate. In my view, it is the only approach that will protect religious liberty and freedom of speech in the spirit of secularism. The Presbyterian church has resolved to withdraw from the Marriage Act if forced by legislation to conduct same-sex marriage. The proposal reflects realism. The current Marriage Act is secular, consistent with our secular state. It does not represent the view that marriage is the sanctified union of a man and woman under God. The withdrawal of religions from the Marriage Act would strengthen the vital distinction between state authority and church authority.
If the Yes vote wins public support, politicians should respect it by passing legislation to legalise same-sex marriage. However, understand that the draft bill could broaden the scope of state regulation of the family, private enterprise, private property and core freedoms. If passed in its current form, the same-sex marriage bill could empower taxpayer-funded activism against freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Consequently, I believe that legalisation of same-sex marriage should give rise to the withdrawal of churches, temples and mosques from the Australian Marriage Act.
