I suspect most will be pragmatic when it comes to exchanging wedding vows - They’ll move on quickly to the next venue.
Again, the bill has not yet been passed so talking about its original intentions is pointless. Even if we assume that it passes without amendment through both houses it still doesn’t exactly rule out the possibility of future challenges & pressure to change even if its found to be air tight. I’m sure you can at the very least concede that bills can have unexpected outcomes or be interpreted by the courts very differently to what may have originally been intended. Does anyone actually believe the writers of the constitution intended the recent citizenship issue to play out over 100 years later?
Nothing does, as you well know.
I don’t expect the Smith Bill to be passed without some tweaking. What I hope is that the underlying basis of the Sex Discrimination Act and the Family Law Act, plus existing Human Rights law will not be underminef to erect a second class status for SSM.
There is such a thing as the Acts Intepretation Act to assist the courts in interpreting the law, including its object and purpose.
Despite the careful crafting of the Bill and anticipated amendments , challenges can never be ruled out. That is a sign of a robust society and not to be feared. But you can’t compare it with a Constitution drafted in the 19th century in such different historical circumstances,
Absent Abbott and his damned plebiscite, all of this could have been resolved so much sooner.
Fears need to be articulated beyond the what if category.
1 Like
There is a category of marriage celebrants under Commonwealth law that provides for them to conduct ceremonies on behalf of religious bodies.
Is that meant to be Turnbull & his postal survey you are talking about because I certainly don’t recall receiving Abbott’s plebiscite. I think what the survey actually exposed is why the matter wasn’t resolved sooner. In spite of having 2 terms of ALP gvt plus a sort of coalition with the Greens, the issue barely rated a mention. Looking at the response from ALP heartland I now understand why they were scared to act.
Abbot’s plebiscite, which Turnbull agreed to as one of the conditions for rolling Abbott, which was knocked back by Labor and the Greens In the Senate . That’s how the postal survey came to be.
So have you noticed how already the conversation has shifted from: “just let gay people get married, it’s not as if it affects you”, to “Christians aren’t allowed to follow Christian teaching any more.”
No.
No I haven’t.
Nope. What’s your evidence of this?
Now that you mention it
I don’t get why just because you believe in an invisible super wizard and a magic zombie, you should be exempted from anti discrimination laws that normal people have to abide by.
If you have a discriminatory belief, serves you right if the laws get changed to disallow you to practice it professionally.
2 Likes
Get absolutely ■■■■■■.
3 Likes
I agree.
People who choose to be religious have more rights than those born to be gay.
3 Likes
What a load of crap.
2 Likes
His brother is gay and it makes no difference to his bigotry.
Religion is a load of crap, and the government should stop giving it special privileges. Except maybe offering those infected by it special counselling.
4 Likes
So that’s what provoking is???
There’s going to be a hell of a lot of people who ought never to open their mouths, if that’s the case.
So, now being religious gives people the right to be bigots. What’s changed?
Democracy moving forward in Australia, not…Malcolm you are on your way out.
1 Like