LGBTQ lobby hate religious exemptions - want to force the immorality
The day after Valentine's Day, there was an apparent outbreak of love in Parliament amongst Senators on opposite sides of the same-sex marriage debate.
There had been a meeting of minds and hearts, it seemed. Consensus had been reached on a pathway forward for so called "marriage equality", it was asserted.
The trigger for this goodwill and warm feelings was the tabling of a Senate Select Committee report examining the potential impacts of redefining marriage on religious freedom. It was significant that it was tabled without the usual dissenting report attached.
Labor, Greens, Liberal and Nationals Senators had agreed that some religious freedom should be protected and that Australians who were not professional pastors would have their rights and freedoms impacted should marriage law ever change. Consequences to the freedoms of other Australians is something rarely if ever conceded by proponents of same-sex marriage.
For years they have said changing the Marriage Act was a simple tweaking of a few words, nothing more.
The committee was chaired by South Australian Liberal Senator David Fawcett who supports keeping the definition of marriage.
He told the Senate: "I note that if Australia is to remain a plural, tolerant society where different views are valued and legal, legislators must recognise that this change will require careful, simultaneous consideration of a wide range of specialist areas of law as opposed to the common perception that it involves just a few words in one act of parliament."
While the committee did not agree on how best to ensure that different views on marriage could remain legal without seeing ordinary Australians hauled before human rights commissions and fined, they at least agreed there would be consequences.
But the committee recognised that it was not bigotry for ministers of religion, civil marriage celebrants and even business owners who supply the wedding industry to wish to be free to live out their beliefs about marriage.
Senators supporting homosexual marriage were keen to foster the idea of collegial consensus between differing parties and that a harmonious path forward for redefining marriage could be charted. But the Senators' views were in stark contrast to the leaders of the homosexual marriage movement who gave evidence at their hearings.
In reality, their report and speeches in the Parliament last week papered over the deep cracks of division within the homosexual marriage movement.
Just.equal spokesperson and long-time campaigner for redefining marriage, Rodney Croome, told the committee hearings he was opposed to protections for religious freedom for civil celebrants. "To us it (providing protections) would sound like a way to legitimise prejudice," Croome told the Senators.
Chris Pycroft of the NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby told the committee: "I think that any amendment that would be introduced to the bill which would introduce exemptions (for religious freedom) in some form or another would need a review put in place, I would say two to three years after the specific exemptions were put in place, to evaluate their effectiveness and whether it is appropriate to keep those exemptions in place". Clearly any protections for freedom of belief that Parliament might include to secure the passage of a same-sex marriage bill would not stand the test of time before activists started lobbying again for change.
Turnbull Government MP Tim Wilson, who is in an immoral homosexual relationship, has been championing the idea that immoral homosexual marriage and freedom for dissenting Australians can co-exist. he is deluded!
He talks of a "soft landing" for religious freedom but stops short of allowing freedom of religion for individual business owners who supply the wedding industry.
Croome and Pycroft's testimony make it clear that any concessions for freedom, even for priests, made now by the immoral homosexual marriage lobby would not be tolerated and would be unpicked in the future. Wilson's goodwill to the other side is admirable but it would be naïve for supporters of traditional marriage to grasp his olive branch.
The Co-Chair of Australian Marriage Equality and member of the NSW Parliament, Alex Greenwich, is constantly chipping away at the legal protections for religious schools in NSW anti-discrimination law which allows them freedom to positively discriminate so they can hire staff who share their ethos.
Urged by the gay lobby, the same-sex-marriage-friendly Victorian Government lost its bid by just one vote to strip Christian schools of this freedom. The activists driving the political agenda that sits under the rainbow flag are not tolerant people.
While consequences for freedom are now being acknowledged in the Parliament, the next step is for politicians to understand the ethical consequences of assisted reproductive technology and removing gender from the classroom which flow from removing the gender requirement from marriage law.
Recognising that there is a complex legal problem with freedom that must be addressed, is a good start. Recognising the complex ethical issues redefining marriage and gender imposes on children should be the subject of the Senate's next inquiry.
That there are far reaching consequences of redefining marriage is further reason why a people's vote is the fairest way to settle this debate
There had been a meeting of minds and hearts, it seemed. Consensus had been reached on a pathway forward for so called "marriage equality", it was asserted.
The trigger for this goodwill and warm feelings was the tabling of a Senate Select Committee report examining the potential impacts of redefining marriage on religious freedom. It was significant that it was tabled without the usual dissenting report attached.
Labor, Greens, Liberal and Nationals Senators had agreed that some religious freedom should be protected and that Australians who were not professional pastors would have their rights and freedoms impacted should marriage law ever change. Consequences to the freedoms of other Australians is something rarely if ever conceded by proponents of same-sex marriage.
For years they have said changing the Marriage Act was a simple tweaking of a few words, nothing more.
The committee was chaired by South Australian Liberal Senator David Fawcett who supports keeping the definition of marriage.
He told the Senate: "I note that if Australia is to remain a plural, tolerant society where different views are valued and legal, legislators must recognise that this change will require careful, simultaneous consideration of a wide range of specialist areas of law as opposed to the common perception that it involves just a few words in one act of parliament."
While the committee did not agree on how best to ensure that different views on marriage could remain legal without seeing ordinary Australians hauled before human rights commissions and fined, they at least agreed there would be consequences.
But the committee recognised that it was not bigotry for ministers of religion, civil marriage celebrants and even business owners who supply the wedding industry to wish to be free to live out their beliefs about marriage.
Senators supporting homosexual marriage were keen to foster the idea of collegial consensus between differing parties and that a harmonious path forward for redefining marriage could be charted. But the Senators' views were in stark contrast to the leaders of the homosexual marriage movement who gave evidence at their hearings.
In reality, their report and speeches in the Parliament last week papered over the deep cracks of division within the homosexual marriage movement.
Just.equal spokesperson and long-time campaigner for redefining marriage, Rodney Croome, told the committee hearings he was opposed to protections for religious freedom for civil celebrants. "To us it (providing protections) would sound like a way to legitimise prejudice," Croome told the Senators.
Chris Pycroft of the NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby told the committee: "I think that any amendment that would be introduced to the bill which would introduce exemptions (for religious freedom) in some form or another would need a review put in place, I would say two to three years after the specific exemptions were put in place, to evaluate their effectiveness and whether it is appropriate to keep those exemptions in place". Clearly any protections for freedom of belief that Parliament might include to secure the passage of a same-sex marriage bill would not stand the test of time before activists started lobbying again for change.
Turnbull Government MP Tim Wilson, who is in an immoral homosexual relationship, has been championing the idea that immoral homosexual marriage and freedom for dissenting Australians can co-exist. he is deluded!
He talks of a "soft landing" for religious freedom but stops short of allowing freedom of religion for individual business owners who supply the wedding industry.
Croome and Pycroft's testimony make it clear that any concessions for freedom, even for priests, made now by the immoral homosexual marriage lobby would not be tolerated and would be unpicked in the future. Wilson's goodwill to the other side is admirable but it would be naïve for supporters of traditional marriage to grasp his olive branch.
The Co-Chair of Australian Marriage Equality and member of the NSW Parliament, Alex Greenwich, is constantly chipping away at the legal protections for religious schools in NSW anti-discrimination law which allows them freedom to positively discriminate so they can hire staff who share their ethos.
Urged by the gay lobby, the same-sex-marriage-friendly Victorian Government lost its bid by just one vote to strip Christian schools of this freedom. The activists driving the political agenda that sits under the rainbow flag are not tolerant people.
While consequences for freedom are now being acknowledged in the Parliament, the next step is for politicians to understand the ethical consequences of assisted reproductive technology and removing gender from the classroom which flow from removing the gender requirement from marriage law.
Recognising that there is a complex legal problem with freedom that must be addressed, is a good start. Recognising the complex ethical issues redefining marriage and gender imposes on children should be the subject of the Senate's next inquiry.
That there are far reaching consequences of redefining marriage is further reason why a people's vote is the fairest way to settle this debate
