GAY TRUTH

Legislation re-defining marriage to include same sex couples passed its final third reading stage in the Commonwealth House of Representatives this evening Australian time , December 7. The  Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill  2017  will soon become law when it receives the Royal Assent . In this post I want to start exploring some immediate implications for religious freedom and other “law and religion” issues. The Next Steps The Bill was not amended in debate in the House of Representatives over the last few days from the form in which it passed the Senate, where it had been introduced as a Private Senator’s Bill. Like all Commonwealth legislation, it now needs to receive the Royal Assent from the Governor-General . However, it is important to note that its substantive provisions (the changes to the  Marriage Act  1961 and the consequential changes to other legislation) will not commence until a further proclamation following Royal Assent has

The Melbourne AGE ran an article based on an interview from an Irish Senator seeking to dismiss 'religious freedom' concerns about homosexual marriage. But the Senator simply ignited the concern bu his lying.  In 2015 Ireland voted with a majority of 62 per cent for marriage equality, the first country in the world to make this social change by popular vote. Since then, a lot of gay people have gotten married. "The world hasn't ended, the sky didn't fall down, the sun still shines, the moon is still in the sky and the world continues," Buttimer says. "It's only been a positive, in terms of equality and opportunity for all people. People are going to registry offices, humanist ceremonies are taking place across the country. "They're joining in celebrations, there's dancing at the crossroads, there's dancing in weddings, there's feasting and banqueting and there's love."What happens? Two people get married and the w

Traditional beliefs ignored in marriage equality debate Opposing change on the basis of deeply held beliefs isn’t bigotry. In recent years there has been a remarkable shift in sentiment across the Western world about same-sex marriage. It may well be that in the next Federal Parliament , if not in this, there will be a majority of MPs who support change. The change in thinking is particularly apparent in the Labor Party . Less than four years ago, party policy was to oppose same-sex marriage. A little more than 10 years ago it voted with the Coalition to include in the Marriage Act a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Now, by 2019, MPs who hold that view will no longer be able to have a conscience vote on the matter. The implicit message, regrettably, is that people of devout faith who hold traditional views about marriage are no longer welcome in the party – a position that will be electorally dangerous for Labor in the long term. These are the "true be

Some Coalition MPs are warning that the redefinition of marriage will leave churches, schools, charities and individuals that defend traditional marriage exposed to legal challenges in the future. West Australian Liberal MP Andrew Hastie said yesterday that religious protections in Dean Smith's SSM bill were insufficient. “The Smith bill only offered protections to individuals involved in the conduct of weddings. It failed to grasp the far-reaching significance of redefining marriage," he said. Mr Hastie suggested discrimin­ation laws across the country were skewed against those who continued to defend traditional marriage — individuals could be left legally exposed for simply speaking their minds while non-government schools could be forced to change their teachings if same-sex marriage was passed. “What about Australians who hold to the view of marriage as a union between a man and a woman based on empirical evidence, biology and historical precedence? This is how I’

While the flawed postal vote plebiscite has provoked furious rival responses, the pivotal problem is just emerging — the failure in any draft bill by Coalition or Labor MPs to fully protect religious freedoms once same-sex marriage is legislated. This is set to become an explosive issue within the Coalition parties. The alarm has been sounded and if, as expected, the plebiscite returns a “yes” vote, it will be triggered. This will become a serious problem for Malcolm Turnbull and Attorney-General George Brandis . Tony Abbott , a number of other prominent Liberals and church leaders will direct much of their campaign against same-sex marriage on to the failure of the parliament to confront the religious freedom issue and exploit public doubts on this front. Beyond the campaign lies the great dilemma. The proposition is lethal — that it would constitute a historical betrayal of the values of the Coalition parties if they “backed” a bill post-plebiscite on same-sex marriage that e

This is the core point. It is the challenge the Coalition will abandon only at the price of betraying the principles basic to its life since the inception of these parties. Will Turnbull before the next election face the prospect of believers in traditional marriage being penalised or intimidated because his government refused to provide legal protections? If so, how will conservative voters react? The irony is that Smith agrees religious protections are inadequate and should be addressed. He tells Inquirer: “I think there is legitimacy to a broad discussion of religious freedom in Australia .” But Smith doesn’t want this to interfere with his bill or the passing of same-sex marriage . He wants this as a separate discussion. Brandis makes no secret of the approach he took as A-G. His focus was on the same-sex marriage bill itself and he was ambitious in pushing the boundaries against much LGBTI sentiment to ensure that marriage celebrants as well as ministers of religion can re