Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697634944469.pdf (Australia)
Submission to the Senate Committee Inquiry into The Commonwealth Government’s exposure draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill The Commonwealth Government’s exposure draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) BillSubmission 255 i Contents Scope of Submission ............................................................................................................................... 1 The Reach of Marriage Act 1961 Amendments ...................................................................................... 1 Impacts on Constructive Dialogue Surrounding Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ and Sexuality ............................. 1 Gender Neutralisation, Offense and Safety ............................................................................................ 2 Family, Biology and Constructive Conversations .................................................................................... 3 Silenced by Fear ...................................................................................................................................... 3 In Conclusion: Whose Right’s Right?.......................................................................................................
4 The Commonwealth Government’s exposure draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) BillSubmission 255 1 Scope of Submission This submission to the ‘Select Committee on the Exposure Draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill’, is a response to the terms of reference for proposed changes to the Marriage Act 1961 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984.
The Senate Inquiry seeks to consider the effect of proposed amendments and exemptions on religious freedoms, in the context of ministers of religion, marriage celebrants and religious bodies.
This response encompasses considerations relating to these matters, but further explores how amending the Marriage Act 1961 not only impacts rights of religious freedom, but has brought about and will continue to bring a shift in social dialogues and perceptions in a way that diminishes the right to freedom of speech for others in society.

The Reach of Marriage Act 1961 Amendments Our society is all about rights, and wherever we find ourselves in the spectrum of personal persuasions, we’re to be proud!
But the proposed changes to the Marriage Act 1961 and polarised positions in society on this matter raises very real concerns as to whether the rights and freedoms of community members and religious leaders of differing values can be sustained, without denying those of others with contradictory ideals.
I believe this question probes problematic ideology espousing the legal recognition of same-sex civil unions as being equivalent to marriage between a man and a woman, as proposed by the Marriage Act 1961 amendments, which additional amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 insufficiently address.

The complexity and extensive reach of same-sex ‘marriage’ related issues on Australians’ liberties and freedom of speech is often ill-considered, even played down by those in authority and much of the media.
Such constrictions do not only apply to ministers of religion, marriage celebrants, and related organisations, but any community member holding convictions converse to those approving the ‘redefinition’ of marriage.

This intrusion of rights is further compounded by the additional carriages that roll on the back of ‘same-sex marriage’ crusades, represented by a dizzying string of letters denoting the LGBTIQ collective.
Impacts on Constructive Dialogue Surrounding Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ and Sexuality It is unfortunate respectful and open discussion of societal concerns surrounding marriage ‘redefinition’ have been muzzled from the highest positions of influence, with the gag tightened by tactical name calling and generally demeaning remarks to any community member voicing doubts over this proposition.
This verbal intimidation has been the response modelled by some leaders whose claims of ‘protecting all families’ fall flat against the deliberate silencing of constructive dialogue by community members who do not believe changing what we call marriage would be good for Australian families.
The strategy of saying something enough times until people believe it has not only been practiced on adults, but to accelerate acceptance of same-gender attraction across society, weightily funded programmes have been rolled out bombarding young children with ideologies encouraging them to question their own sexuality, even their gender, in the form of ‘safe-schools’ and other related ‘teaching’.
As someone described it to me, the children confronted by these controversial gender theories, don’t even have a file in which to contextualise this information, let alone understand it.

Who decided this was healthy behaviour to be promoting, let alone acceptable material for impressionable children?
Were Submission for the Senate Committee Inquiry into The Commonwealth Government’s exposure draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill The Commonwealth Government’s exposure draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) BillSubmission 255 2 concerned parents provided an opportunity to voice their concerns, prior to programme implementation?
Eventually the Federal Government responded to public outcry, yet in Queensland, the State Government continued to deny parents transparency on information relating to schools running the ‘Safe Schools’ programme.

Despite increasing alarms being raised on the damaging impact of pornography on children, apparently directing children to sites with significantly graphic images through the ‘Safe Schools’ programme was okay, irrespective of parental consent or opinion.
I am not an advocate of bullying, either physical or emotional, of young people who are experiencing sexual confusion.

Everyone deserves kindness and respect.

But why is it suddenly okay to expose a child to information that even the children themselves describe as traumatising, just because it has an LGBTIQ tag?

Yes, this programme is being examined.


Yes, some of the more graphic material has been removed, but why were parents denied the right to have age-appropriate conversations about these sensitive issues with their own children, in a manner that reflects their values, beliefs and religious freedoms?
Gender Neutralisation, Offense and Safety In a bizarre shift, these types of evangelistic homosexuality and transgender school programmes discourage the use of terms relating to natural, biological facts, like ‘male’ or ‘female’ for fear of offense.
Children who aren’t even old enough to manage their own meal plans, let alone tie their shoelaces, are being pushed into confusion over these basic facts and forced to decide if they’re really the boy or girl every single cell in their body and their anatomy are telling them that they are.

Does anyone not question how this confusion and undermining of the most fundamental surety in a child’s world will manifest in other forms of disruptive behaviours and high risk sexual experimentation?
And if such questions are raised, would anyone have the right to voice them?

The surge to acclimatise society to same-sex attraction has seen the strengths and diversity that come with a given gender being diluted, denigrated and distorted for children through manipulative and confusing dialogue that would leave most adults dizzy (or angry), irrespective of religious inclinations.
This is not only through programmes the children themselves detest, but also through the broadcasting of supposedly child appropriate entertainment by television networks, with no ‘sexually confusing content’ warning.

There is a term for this.

Child abuse.

Even the mainstream media is spreading this message of gender neutrality through its loudhailer.
In some countries, people are being threatened civilly, legally and physically for referring to someone in an ‘engendering’ manner, for example calling a married couple ‘husband and wife’ or a young female a ‘girl’, all in the name of minimising offense.

But whose offense?

Many people aren’t game to speak out, whether a minister of religion, celebrant or just a concerned member of the community.
If gender is really just a state of mind or a psychological condition, what a kick to the teeth for any women’s rights activist.

How did society get to a place where we’re celebrating the ‘womanhood’ of men with artificial breast implants and other augmentations and/or genital amputations?

Would any one dare to tell a woman who’s had a hysterectomy and/or mastectomy she’s any less female?

How offensive!

But again, to whom?

And then there’s the bathroom issue.


As an adult, I am extremely uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with members of the opposite sex, outside my immediate family and close friends.

In fact, I avoid it where possible.

Do I have a right to voice my want for a safe and non- threatening public bathroom experience?

What about victims of sexual abuse?


Do they not Submission for the Senate Committee Inquiry into The Commonwealth Government’s exposure draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill The Commonwealth Government’s exposure draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) BillSubmission 255 3 also have this same right?
As a parent, I am not at all comfortable with my child sharing their bathroom with strangers of the opposite sex, further, as they mature and face the challenges that only those of the same gender can fully appreciate.

Why can’t I as a parent exert my right to protect my child and be confident they are provided a safe and comfortable bathroom, especially in their educational facility?

Whose right is of most importance, even when it comes to safety?

Whose voice should be heard?


Family, Biology and Constructive Conversations Conversations on family is a topic that frequently lands on the desk of ministers of religion, but not only the clergy, anyone who has parents, a significant other or children.

It is recognised from studies on adoption, donor children and other related research, that children flourish best in a family structure with both biological parents (and both sets of biological grandparents for that matter).
There are always exceptions, but studies into these areas unveil an increased incidence of a range of challenges facing children from varied family constructs and reproductive technologies, in comparison to their peers living with both biological parents.

Add to this, considerations of the success of a child’s future relationships with members of the opposite sex, as modelled in the home.
Issues relating to biological connections strike indiscriminately, yet when same-gender relationships are examined as a family forming unit, how offensive would it be to raise these known trends?

It is not a game to hurt or tear down those in challenging family situations, but these facts don’t cease to exist just because a couple are in a same-gender relationship and parenting context.

Doesn’t this deserve open and constructive conversation within the community?
The fact is our concept of family is now so disproportionate that one cannot even post a statement on social media encouraging a husband and wife in their relationship, for the positive impact this has on their children, without being howled down.

Why?

It is offensive.

Silenced by Fear Why are people so silent?

Why are we mutely allowing children to be subject to abusive and confusing processes?
Why are we allowing people to speak of marriage between a man and woman as if it’s broken and needs ‘fixing’ when that is the very foundation of society we should be striving to strengthen?

Why do people remain silent when others naively gloss over the ‘simplicity’ of how ‘redefining’ marriage might not be a positive thing for society?

This is in no way a let’s-just-change-a-few-simple-words issue.
Why are we silent when community members, organisations or religious ministers endeavour to generate constructive dialogue surrounding these issues or, heaven forbid, share truths on marriage with members of their community, only to be exemplified as a warning for any other non- conformists by being hauled before the courts for their offence or threatened with litigation?

Why are there so many in the ranks of the silent majority?

Why do we watch this alarming spiral into chaos and confusion in silence?
People are afraid.

Afraid of even ‘liking’ a comment or remark on social media for the backlash they’ll receive; afraid of speaking their mind when someone denigrates traditional views of family, even if they’ve watched the devastating consequences of family ‘redefinition’.

Yet throw a rainbow up on your profile image and you’re hailed a social liberator.

Do we listen to those who’ve lived under this ‘modern construct’?
Do we give equal voice to those who’ve walked the path of same-gender attraction or transgenderism, then Submission for the Senate Committee Inquiry into The Commonwealth Government’s exposure draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill The Commonwealth Government’s exposure draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) BillSubmission 255 4 decided they wanted to choose differently?

How offensive would it be to have those sorts of people spreading their convictions in the public forum?
Theoretically, we all have the same right to freedom of speech.

Yet, if it was suspected the increasing sexualisation of young children, as proposed through programmes for pre-school children, would further contribute to reports on the rising incidence of sexual assault on pre- school and early childhood learners by their peers, would one be allowed to voice their concerns without repercussion?
What about raising awareness of the negative consequences of a friend or close connection asserting their right to be whatever they believed themselves to be gender wise, no matter whose life it derails?

Wouldn’t some of the matters detailed above be offensive to communities of Australians, not only of various religious beliefs, but differing cultural ideologies?

Where do their rights lie?

What if they dare speak out?

We’ve seen some of those processes in motion in our southern states.
What is so wrong with saying traditional family works?

Family breakdown leading to divorce and separation is a tragedy, for the couple and their children.

And no one is immune.

What if we poured the same measure of resources that are being funnelled into programmes supporting and promoting same-gender ideologies, into programmes for the prevention of marital breakdown; toward building healthy marriages and supporting couples before they reach crisis point?
Instead, we are staring down the barrel of a collective ‘what marriage is doesn’t really matter’ clause.

And don’t you dare disagree—or you’ll be … what?

A bigot?

A radicalist?

A hater?

Just because someone in power says it’s so, doesn’t scrape away the evidence that traditional marriage and family ARE important and need to be protected.

Recognising this doesn’t equate to hating people who feel differently.

It doesn’t imply ‘inequality’.


All eligible Australians have exactly the same right to marry; marriage being a lifelong union between a man and a woman, excluding all others, for the formation of a new family unit.

That IS marriage.

In Conclusion: Whose Right’s Right?


In this current environment, it appears the promotion of same-gender relationships, transgenderism and related ideologies trumps the right to freedom of speech or even freedom of converse opinions on this topic, whether voiced by a minister of religion, religious organisation, celebrant or just an ordinary Australian.

Is this really okay?

It appears in our modern society that if you have an addiction or confusion on any other issue, you’re entitled to seek help.
On sexuality, you shut and put up—or you’ll be … what?

Why can’t there be constructive conversation on these issues without a figurative LGBTIQ billboard being slammed in our faces every five minutes?
Why can’t young people struggling with their sexuality be offered a safe place to explore the ‘why’ behind the ‘what’, especially when clear patterns, even going so far as to suggest predisposing factors, surrounding same-sex attraction have been identified in literature in the past—before it was offensive to ask those questions?

Offensive to whom?

Who cares, so long as it isn’t someone who identifies with the current ideology of interest.
Currently, that interest is the endorsement of same-sex ‘marriage’ in Australian society.

With lobbyists so vigorously sanctioning the push for same-sex civil unions to be considered equivalent to marriage, it seems an unsustainable tension when this position so stridently conflicts with the values of a significant portion of the community.
Submission for the Senate Committee Inquiry into The Commonwealth Government’s exposure draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill The Commonwealth Government’s exposure draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) BillSubmission 255 5 The point?
Yes, amending the Marriage Act 1961 to recognise same gender civil unions as being equivalent to marriage and a genuine, family forming unit that doesn’t deny a child any rights, will impact on freedom of speech, including that of religious organisations, celebrants and ministers of religion.

It already has.
It already has.

And if the pattern that exists in response to attempted dialogue on the topic of same-sex ‘marriage’ and related issues is any guide, proposed amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 will be an insufficient concession for those who contest a ‘redefinition’ of marriage, whether they be ministers of religion, celebrants, members of religious organisations or ordinary community members.
Submission for the Senate Committee Inquiry into The Commonwealth Government’s exposure draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill The Commonwealth Government’s exposure draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) BillSubmission 255