Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697641830767.pdf (Australia)
1 Select Committee on the Exposure Draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill Dear Committee, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the exposure draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill.
I comment on some of the following Terms of Reference: (a) the nature and effect of proposed exemptions for ministers of religion, marriage celebrants and religious bodies and organisations, the extent to which those exemptions prevent encroachment upon religious freedoms, and the Commonwealth Government’s justification for the proposed exemptions; (b) the nature and effect of the proposed amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and the Commonwealth Government’s justification for it; (c) potential amendments to improve the effect of the bill and the likelihood of achieving the support of the Senate; and (d) whether there are to be any consequential amendments, and, if so, the nature and effect of those consequential amendments, and the Commonwealth Government’s justification for them.
Background The exemptions proposed by the draft amendments to ministers of religion, marriage celebrants and religious bodies and organisations, are related solely to the solemnisation of marriage.

Future erosions of the protections under law Firstly, there is nothing preventing a future law eroding or removing entirely the proposed exemption in the draft.

The exemption provides little, if any, guarantee for the relevant persons or organisations that they can continue to exercise their religious freedoms.
Limitations of proposed protections Secondly, the exemptions do not deal in any way with those same-sex partners who have had their marriages solemnised elsewhere and subsequently wish to take positions of authority or influence in a religious institution such as a church, mosque or school.

This is important.

The Liberal party would not wish to employ a Labor party member, nor vice versa.
Why should a religious organisation be required to allow a person who holds ideals at significant odds to that organisation, to employ / have that person in a position of authority that they could use in a way counter to the beliefs of the organisation.

Therefore, the proposed 47B Religious bodies and organisations should be extended to facilities, goods and services provided by every religious individual.
The Commonwealth Government’s exposure draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) BillSubmission 242 2 Cases in the USA, Canada and the UK bear this out.

Institutions have been forced to close, such as adoption agencies, wedding reception facilities, general businesses such as florists, bakers and the like.

Those institutions or people were not restricting same-sex couples from receiving marriage related service from other service providers, nor from general services.
Instead, the ideals of the requesters were forced onto the providers.

This is not religious freedom, but quite the opposite.

To clarify, I’m talking here of items that are used for weddings or have political or other slogans related to same-sex marriage ideals against that of the individual, not for provision of general services.

Freedom of speech Freedom of speech is a human right.
The proposed amendment does not provide protection to ministers of religion, marriage celebrants and religious bodies and organisations regarding freedom of speech except for solemnisation of marriage.

The Australian hate speech type laws are State-based.

The proposed bill offers no protection to those teaching, about marriage, in line with their religious beliefs, that marriage is between a husband and wife to the exclusion of all others, for life.
Archbishop Julian Porteous has already been through an anti-discrimination legal process related to this, for simply teaching his own congregations about marriage from a Christian perspective that aligns with the current law!

How will the protections, that deal solely with the solemnisation of marriage, protect ministers or others if they were to teach the doctrines of their beliefs that conflict with the proposed law if such a law was legislated?
And overseas we have seen examples of people losing their jobs for speaking out against same sex marriage according to their religious views, and have even faced jail time because they disagreed with same-sex marriage.

To not be able to speak your mind, and disagree with a law without being sent to court is not freedom of speech.

Sex education and the rights of family This flows on to the rights of a family.

Same-sex, LGBTQI sexual education is being forced onto our children.
The State government of Queensland has refused to inform parents if the ‘Safe Schools’ program is being used at their children’s school.

The Victorian government has decreed all schools will have the unchanged program despite Federal direction to the contrary.

If the State and Federal governments cannot agree now, what impact will there be if the law is changed?

I for one will not have my children taught these radical ideas that are contrary to human nature.
Will I be prosecuted for trying to legitimately protect my children?

Where are the protections for the rights of the child?

This proposed amendment does not give protection to children.

It is a basic human right for a child to have its biological father and mother wherever possible.
To legislate same-sex marriage as proposed by the marriage amendment will result in increased surrogacy and sperm donation, and by law enshrine that some children will not have their biological father and mother automatically.

This goes against the best wellbeing of the child (and potential surrogates).
I would like to see significantly more accurate, relevant studies conducted in Australia before same-sex marriage is considered suitable for enshrining in law without protection for children, who need both a mother and a father.

There are, sadly, cases where this is not possible, due to death, infidelity, abuse, abandonment or the like, but they are not planned for.

Our children are vital for our nations prosperous future.

Let us protect them.


The Commonwealth Government’s exposure draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) BillSubmission 242 Thank you.

3 The Commonwealth Government’s exposure draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) BillSubmission 242