Liberals to introduce two conflicting marriage bills this week if Yes wins

Liberals to introduce two conflicting marriage bills this week if Yes wins
Image: Images: Facebook.

Two bills for marriage equality are set to be introduced this week, after the results of the postal survey are announced.

Conservative Liberals have drafted a new bill, released today by senator James Paterson, that enshrines the right of service providers to refuse to serve same-sex couples, The Australian has reported.

Providers including florists, bakers, and wedding venues would be permitted to discriminate against same-sex couples by refusing service for their weddings.

The bill specifies the “relevant marriage beliefs” on which people will be permitted to discriminate.

In addition to the belief that relationships should be between a man and a woman, the bill specifies that discrimination based on beliefs against extramarital sex and non-binary gender, among others, will be legally protected.

The bill would require amendments to the federal Sex Discrimination Act as well as the Marriage Act, and would override existing state and territory anti-discrimination laws.

Also included in the bill is a reference to Safe Schools, specifying that parents may opt their children out of classes that conflict with their values.

Paterson said the provisions in the bill were necessary to protect diverse views.

“If the parliament opts for a narrower bill with fewer protections, I fear we will see some Australians seek to impose their values on others, with court cases and other legal mechanisms,” he said.

“No one should want to see the messy court cases that have occurred after same-sex marriage was legalised in other countries.”

Liberal senator Dean Smith will also introduce his marriage equality bill this week, Perth Now has reported.

Smith’s bill preserves the right of religious ministers to refuse to solemnise a wedding, without introducing new provisions for other discrimination.

“The objective of the bill is clear: it creates equal access to marriage while protecting religious freedom in relation to marriage,” said Smith.

“There is no apology for the fact that the bill does not address free speech or parental rights—because it’s a bill about marriage equality.”

Smith’s bill has already been subject to a cross party senate committee, and was built upon the findings of a senate inquiry.

The marriage equality postal survey closed last week after 12 million Australians voted.

The result will be announced on Wednesday morning.

You May Also Like

6 responses to “Liberals to introduce two conflicting marriage bills this week if Yes wins”

  1. Attention Lesbians, gays etc. As part of our same sex marriage initiative you are required to attend your nearest tattoo parlour to have a pink triangle tattooed on your wrist. This will enable businesses and others to discriminate against you much more easily. Thank you, the Australian Government.

  2. This new Bill is just another red-neck, bigoted, homophobic – and eventually racist for they will extend it to Inter-racial Marriages diversion. When are these Ultra-Right-Wing Neo-Fascist going to get the guts, the moral fortitude to leave the Liberal Party and join Australia’s only legal neo-Fascist political party, Cory Bernardi’s “Australian Conservatives? That is the political party they should belong to. The Liberal Party, maintaining the original basic philosophy as set down by Bob Menzies when he created it will survive. Menzies created the Liberal Party because the only other major political parties in existence at the time were, in Menzies view, far too far to the Left (the then ALP) and the “United Australia Party” (sounds a bit like Pauline’s lot) was far too far to the Right of Politics . Menzies’ Liberal Party was Moderate Centre. These ultra-right-wing neo-Fascists such as Abbott, Abetz, Andrews, Paterson etc. do not belong in the Liberal Party.
    They should either resign or be thrown out.
    The various religions represented in Australia already practice Discrimination and against their own members. The Catholics won’t marry Heterosexual Couple where one or both of them have been Divorced. No-one has ever sued that business organisation for Discrimination.
    Religious Laws apply to religious businesses and Secular Law cannot over-ride those Religious Laws.
    The Australia Marriage Act has, nor ever has had, anything to do with Religion. It is a Secular Law and only applies to marriages which take place without the (very doubtful) benefit of any Religious Businesses’ blessings!
    Money is today’s Great and Only God. Religious businesses may refuse to marry Same Gender Couples. People with religious beliefs who run businesses catering to the massive and very lucrative “Marriage Industry” – such as Caterers, Hire Cars, Venues, Marquees, Clothing, Florists have only got to say “We’re sorry but we are Fully Booked out for the next 18 months” if they want to refuse to provide Commercial Services to Same Gender Couples. They can’t be forced to actually prove they are not lying. The vast majority will see untold 10s of 1000s of Dollars in Profits and very few will walk away from such a farce.
    The entire “protection racket” being promoted by the neo-Fascists is just a silly, ill-informed red herring to try to derail the entire issue.

  3. This government is a total embarrassment. Rather than admit this $122 million was a total waste of money, they won’t even be honest enough to just pass equality. They will just enshrine discrimination in the law. They make me sick! Will never vote Liberal in my life. Turnbill has fled the country which makes me think he already knows the result. Coward!

  4. I’m guessing this will also pick up interracial marriages. They have famously been opposed on religious grounds, such as in the Loving v Virginia case of 1959 when the judge threw two married people out of the state citing “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

    That judgement was the law of the land until overturned by the US Supreme Court in 1968.

    I’ll bet anything you like that there are more Australians today who oppose interracial marriage on religious grounds than there are bakers unwilling to sell an overpriced gateau to a gay couple, no doubt they will be represented by these freakshow Liberals.