Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697640729860.pdf (Australia)
Dear Committee Members, I am opposed to the redefinition of marriage and am in agreement with Article 23 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

There are several aspects of this draft with which I have concerns.
In regard to 5, Section 47, the ability for people to exercise their right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion is a right, so therefore should not be an â€œexemptionâ€ to anti- discrimination legislation, in accordance with Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Also, religious freedom is a right of all people and is not confined to ministers of religion, therefore denying religious freedom to the majority of citizens contravenes section 116 of the Australian Constitution â€œCommonwealth not to legislate in respect of religionâ€.

Religious freedom does not refer to only worship and the conduct of religious services.
It includes the right of every individual to live out their faith in the way they live their lives and raise their children (Article 18, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).

This draft seems to be based on the (incorrect) assumption that the sole interest people of faith have is that of preserving their own position.

This is not the case.

My objections are based upon the effect the redefinition of marriage will have on the whole of Australian society.
For example, teaching non-scientific gender theory and associated false constructs embedded throughout the curricula in the education system will have dire effects on Australia as a nation in time to come.

Children are taught to make decisions by following their feelings rather than by performing rational analysis of facts and using logic.

The subsequent effect this false ideology will have on the decision-making ability of the future leaders of Australian society is massive.
Other effects on society include increased pressure for commercial surrogacy and the use of anti- discrimination legislation to punish people who wish to operate their businesses in accordance with their beliefs.

In every other country that has changed the definition of marriage the law has been unable to protect those who adhere to the current definition of marriage.
Also, the experience of other countries that have legalised same-sex marriage has been that the state has passed legislation discriminating against those who hold traditional beliefs concerning marriage and the family.
Groups such as the National Association of Community Legal Centres (https://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Documents/ConsolidationofCommonwealthanti- discriminationlaws/Consolidation%20-%20Discussion%20Paper%20-%20Submissions%20- %20National%20Association%20of%20Community%20Legal%20Service%20- %201%20Feb%202012.PDF) and the Australian Council of Human Rights Agencies (https://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Documents/ConsolidationofCommonwealthanti- discriminationlaws/Consolidation%20-%20Discussion%20Paper%20- %20Aus%20Council%20of%20Human%20Rights%20Agencies%20-%201%20Feb%202012.PDF) have already proposed that government funding and/or charitable status for religious groups be linked to their views on marriage and the family, and such discrimination will inevitably increase if same-sex marriage is legalised.
Submission on the Consolidation of Commonwealth Anti ... www.ag.gov.au Australian Council of Human Rights Agencies Submission Consolidation of Commonwealth Anti-Discrimination Laws 1 February 2012 Submission on the Consolidation of Commonwealth Anti ... www.ag.gov.au The Commonwealth Government’s exposure draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) BillSubmission 355 Page 1 Submission to the Attorney-Generalâ€™s Department The National Association of Community Legal Centresâ€™ Response to the Consolidation of Commonwealth Anti ...
Discrimination against people holding traditional views on marriage and the family is already occurring in Australia.

Recently, a printing firm refused to print a book written by Dr David van Gend providing a child-centred discussion of the consequences of redefining marriage â€œdue to the subject matter and contentâ€ of the book (http://australianmarriage.org/media-release-censored-opusgroup-refuses- print-dr-van-gends-book/).
Therefore, the potential already exists that a person will be discriminated against in access to services, work or study for expressing a sincerely held belief about marriage and the family.
Also, Archbishop Julian Porteous and all the Catholic Bishops throughout Australia were informed that they had a case to answer before the Tasmanian Human Rights Commission for issuing a pastoral letter outlining Catholic teaching on marriage (http://hobart.catholic.org.au/media/news/complaint-lodged-anti-discrimination-commissioner-be- investigated).

Yet, the teaching was in accordance with current legislation on marriage.
The Victorian government recently breached the separation of Church and State by attempting to impose an â€œinherent requirementâ€ test on faith-based institutions that would give the state, not the relevant religious institution, the ability to determine the level of faith required to maintain the ethos of a faith-based institution (http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubPDocs.nsf/ee665e366dcb6cb0ca256 da400837f6b/eeedcc0c543212d6ca25801f00183a74/$FILE/581013exi1.pdf).
The adoption of a same- sex marriage bill would certainly increase such discrimination against faith-based institutions.
The potential also exists that parents will be judged as â€˜unfitâ€™ to raise children based on their views about marriage, as happened in the UK, where a coupleâ€™s application to adopt two children to whom they had been foster carers was denied because of their view that children needed both a mother and a father (http:///www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/christian-couple-blocked-from-adopting- foster-children-amid-gay-parents-row-a3388456.html).
Similar instances will occur in Australia if a Same-Sex Marriage Bill is passed.

The threat also exists that any current accommodation for religious belief could be repealed in the future.
In submissions to a 2012 inquiry into anti-discrimination laws, the ACT Human Rights Commission (https://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Documents/ConsolidationofCommonwealthanti- discriminationlaws/Consolidation%20-%20Discussion%20Paper%20-%20238%20- %20ACT%20Human%20Rights%20and%20Discrimination%20Commissioner%20- %2014%20Feb%202012.PDF), the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (https://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Documents/ConsolidationofCommonwealthanti- discriminationlaws/PIAC.pdf), and the Womenâ€™s Electoral Lobby Australia (https://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Documents/ConsolidationofCommonwealthanti- discriminationlaws/Consolidation%20-%20Discussion%20Paper%20-%20094%20- %20Women%20s%20Electoral%20Lobby%20Australia%20-%2031%20Jan%202012.PDF) all recommended review periods and/or sunset clauses originally provided for religious belief.
Therefore, there is no certainty that a future government will not repeal citizensâ€™ rights.

In light of the real and serious threats to religious freedom for all Australians, not just ministers of religion, with the introduction of same-sex marriage, it is clear that the Exposure Draft will not prevent encroachment upon religious freedoms.

I ask that the Committee take these concerns into consideration, and thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this process.
Yours sincerely, Yichen Xu The Commonwealth Government’s exposure draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) BillSubmission 355