Life is full of shades of grey - nothing is black and white - and the author needs to understand that creating legislation which purports to be so simple and straightforward as to resolve all grey issues will be too simplistic to be effective. Australians have voted in the plebiscite to allow SSM but it is wrong to assume that the yes vote also meant yes to every expectation of every SSM supporter. You can make every act of discrimination an offense which will be almost impossible to enforce or you can build into legislation reasonable lawful exemptions to respect religious and conscientious beliefs. I support the latter course of action.

Uh oh! It's all starting to unravel already. Has anyone except politicians and a few insiders the slightest idea what is in the Smith bill? Obviously Croome knows what's in it, and wants it “voted” down” even before the public knows what's in it. We, the public who bothered to vote, have already been conned to vote for the magic of 'equality'; now, the likes of Croome want to replace discrimination against his kind with discrimination against the rest of us. But, given past performances, this should be come as no surprise. The SSM mob wouldn't know 'equality' if it bit them on the bum. As with the feminist crowd, it is not equality they want: it's the power to put the rest of us in 'our place' and extract revenge. And, what a surprise that 70% of 3,000 homosexuals surveyed want to put the boot in!

Non-religious celebrants must be able to refuse there services if they so choose, just like any other business people. An offer of a service or product has never had an obligation to provide that service or product attached. The offer can legally be withdrawn at any time.

And, since when has it been OK for religious people to be offended, scandalised, whatever, but not OK for non-religious people?

All you YES people allowed yourselves to be conned by the emotion of 'equality' – what decent person doesn't believe in equality - and you went for it hook, line and sinker. Now you are going to find that equality was just a ruse to take equality and rights from one group, the majority, and hand them over to a minority group. Suckers!

While driving today I turned on the radio and heard someone speaking in parliament against the protections, saying: "we want to create love, not hate".

Does this hateful idiot really believes that love can be legislated?

the Muslims are allowed to have multiple wives and practise Sharia law in Australia because of freedom of religion.
It's called religious tolerance.

So whilst the Muslim religion are allowed to be intolerant of the laws of the country
how can the legislators not grant the Christian religion the right to be a law unto itself
outside of the secular government.

Makes a mockery of the supposed separation of church and state

//the Muslims are allowed to have multiple wives//

No, they're not. Bigamy is illegal, and religious belief is not a defence under the law. If it can be proved before the court, they will be found guilty and sentenced accordingly.

//and practise Sharia law in Australia because of freedom of religion//

They're allowed to practise whatever law they like... as long it doesn't conflict with Australian law. For example: if the law says that out-of-court arbitration is acceptable for some small claims, then certain cultures may be allowed to use traditional forms of law, given certain provisos. But if the law clearly prohibits something like corporal punishment, then no amount of freedom of religion is going to allow you to beat miscreants and get away with it if you get caught. And get caught you will... the long arm of the law gets longer as technology improves.

//So whilst the Muslim religion are allowed to be intolerant of the laws of the country//

They're not. They'll get caught, arrested, and accommodated at Her Majesty's pleasure.

//how can the legislators not grant the Christian religion the right to be a law unto itself
outside of the secular government.//

Yeah, because that's bound to improve society... I can already see the ACL forming vigilante mobs to go forth and crusade against the moral evil of our time (queers, obviously). No thanks.

//Makes a mockery of the supposed separation of church and state//

No, the separation of church and state means not having the church as the state, for fairly obvious reasons (see Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan). The separation of church and state does mean giving religions a licence to anarchy, because nobody likes anarchists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ocngVQ4XaE

Or Neil.

"It's time to draw the line on discrimination exemptions in marriage legislation"

Why Rodney?

"If any more discrimination exemptions make their way into marriage equality legislation, that legislation should be voted down and we should start again."

We?
Sorry to break it to you but I voted 'No'.
Do you want to know why?

- Because of Safe-Schools indoctrination against kids and of gays victimisation against other members of the community.

"Strategically, the bill's exemptions give too much away too early"

I believe in 'Don't sign anything until you read the fine-print.'
Your side did not sort out the fine-print first.

It's not 'WE', I voted 'NO'.

Why did the government ask my opinion if it did not care about my position in the first place?

I gave nothing up to early, I voted 'No'.
And you'll get no sympathy from me now.

You're worried about your little gay mate being embarrassed and humiliated by having someone potentially refuse to marry him.

Seriously what is so hard about calling around to find a celebrant that support marrying gay people?
WTF is wrong with you?
Why can't you just call around and ask?
The same with the damn bakery and your rainbow cakes?
WHY DO YOU HAVE TO ATTACK THE CHURCH?

Is there no gays who are willing to become marriage celebrants so they can marry other gays?
Are there no bakeries who are willing to bake cakes for gay weddings?
Don't gays share this information with each other on facebook.

Seems to me all this is about is attacking others with beliefs separate to yours.

Why is it ok for gays to attack Christians religious beliefs, but it is not ok for regular people to attack Muslims religious beliefs?
- Now that's food for thought isn't it.

Attacking someone else for their rights and beliefs is the same as your lot being attacked for your beliefs.

You're all dumb as dogshite in my opinion.

Amen to AC....

Another well-argued and interesting article.
At the end of the day, though, being an Australian shouldn't mean that you can't be a Christian.

Intended outraged, ought not be able to discriminate on the grounds that he she, didn't hold with SSM!

Belief alone, no matter how profound, venerated or treasured, proves nought! Verifiable facts are the only thing that PROVES anything!

Ultimately we are all God's creatures, be we gay or straight, love is after all, all that matters!

Now anyone with glib tongue/false inculcated from birth, belief. Replete with flat earth medieval view of the world? That the various shades of grey that is black and white humanity is not the new norm, but always was the old norm!

Just one they refused to see or accept! Can argue for a measure of "ACCEPTABLE" discrimination on those very, self same grounds! And on those same grounds, just not doable!

And can learn their lesson when the rest of the normal range of humanity turn our face away and simply avoid them, their business practises or places of worship! As if they were the unclean lepers in this instance?

For the brainwashed from birth, nothing has really changed and they will continue to spread their false doctrine and try to inculcate it into all others, if they're allowed by this or that legislated exception?

Simply put, we cannot legislate what folk chose to think or believe! But need to win them over with irrefutable proof, reason and logic!

Otherwise, all we do is feed the fires of hate and resentment.

Change will come if we just normalise difference as we did around half a century ago when we finally accepted left handedness as just a normal aberration.

Those who resist and say no, are very much in the minority and just do not serve God! But rather, hate and resident, divisive, cage rattling evil!

Let's do the marriage act and then if we are allowed by our "lords and Masters," a long overdue bill of rights, which can include freedom of religion, freedom of worship and freedom of speech! But never ever the right to discriminate on any grounds, be they race, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity!
Alan B.

I totally agree with Alan B.

There are enough protections in the Dean Smith Bill.
There is not a need for any more.
And those that demand more are simply using delaying
tactics. Australia has voted. Let us now legislate.

I think that a totally reasonable default is the repeal of the 2004 changes to the Marriage Act.

Whatever alternative legislation is proposed should be able to get rapid bipartisan support informed by the survey results which give a clear majority preferring the simple change specified in the question without extra elaborations. In the absence of such support, a simple repeal will be a fast alternative, will give a "letter of the law" that is clear enough for people to proceed with their decisions and the details can be thrashed out in the courts.
Simply restoring the pre-2004 law has the added benefit of being long-standing with considerable precedent giving great certainty to the rights and nature of new marriages.

I think that *all* current negotiations should be with the understanding that there is a default alternative establishing the benchmark expectations of the Australian people, and for which no special exemptions were needed then or now.

Rusty.

Far more will suicide by promoting this lifestyle than being refused service from a baker. Regressives have created a very confused generation and now want to blame those who support the natural family which is by far the best way to lower suicide rates.

Typical bigotry from runner in referring to being gay as a 'lifestyle'. Homophobia lives long and hard on OLO.

There will be ways around any draconian discrimination laws against celebrants, bakers etc., and attitudes towards laws are getting slacker all the time in Australia. You can get a good behaviour bond for killing someone these days, so what would you get for not baking a cake or marrying someone? Anyway, it has been shown that homosexuals have lots of fellow travellers who will surely have bakers and marriage celebrants among them. And, of course, it would not be advisable for homosexuals to deliberately provoke service providers whom they know do not want to deal with them. The law might be weak, but there are lawyers out there panting to sue people who try to bring others into disrepute.

'Typical bigotry from runner in referring to being gay as a 'lifestyle'. Homophobia lives long and hard on OLO.'

especially when lefites steal language and twist it in order to promote their bigotry as has minotaur.

Of course, compelling a florist, a baker or a marriage celebrant to provide services for something that they feel strongly against is sure to get the best service and discounts for the special day you want to remember.

Give it up bigots. YOU LOST!

Any exceptions for magic fairy believers are surely going to be closely followed by exemptions for jew haters, racists, witches, pagans, nazis, et al.
Be careful what you wish for bigots.

You might be forced to wear a gold cross on your sleeve or tattoo it on your head.
Just so all those athiest businesses can refuse you service.
It would only be fair wouldnt it?
Be careful what you wish for bigots.

Hay Alan B,
I think your position is actually correct.
If we support discrimination on an 'individuals beliefs' basis, we're going to run into issues like 'Muslim Uber and Taxi drivers refusing to take Blind people with Guide Dogs', (If there is some religious basis to dislike dogs in the Quran)
- So there is actually good reason why there should be no discrimination based on 'individuals beliefs'.

But it's all gotten really catty, don't you think?
And since it has:

What I want to know is if any Muslim or Jewish butchers will discriminate against me by not providing me with a Christmas ham?
C'mon people, it goes both ways!!

They could say they don't sell pork products.
I could argue they are doing so because of THEIR religious beliefs.
I could argue that any non Jewish or non Muslim Butcher would typically sell me a ham.
Therefore they are discriminating against me.

How does my argument stand up?
This is an example of all the 'fine print' you need to work through...

And by the way (to everyone) I might disagree with multiculturalism, the level of immigration and I'm not too fond of Israel or Islam, - but you don't see me going around like gays do trying to mess with individual Muslim and Jewish butchers lives and beliefs in a snidely petty manner do you?

Dear Mikk,

«Any exceptions for magic fairy believers are surely going to be closely followed by exemptions for jew haters, racists, witches, pagans, nazis, et al.»

No exceptions - it is very wrong to have any laws, including anti-discrimination laws, that restrict private businesses from operating in whatever way they like. No private business should be subject to such laws. Essential services are anyway provided by government and/or companies. In fact, even most bakeries operate as companies.

Tony Lavis

In theory those laws should apply to the Muslims but in reality, the Muslims control
whole suburbs where they practise their religion as they wish and the police enter these
areas on tiptoe, and defer to big Muslim males who stand around in big intimidating
male groups. This is particularly true in the UK and Europe.

Sure they may not get away with murder but blocking off streets to pray would be stopped pretty quickly if the Christians did it.

The left wing and greens are hypercritical when it comes to the Christian religion though.
The Muslims, who run shops and businesses, would in a lot of cases not support a gay wedding, dont see them being told they must not do this.

And I am not against gay marriage, just against the tolerating of one religions discriminatory practises over another religions.
The multiculturalists whilst self righteously proclaiming religious tolerance are shown
to be not tolerant of all religions, equally.

I don't know of any marriage celebrant who's going to
perform a marriage ceremony that he/she doesn't want to,
nor any baker who's going to be forced to provide a
service he doesn't want to. All this is merely a
diversion to try to stall the passing of the legislation.
Well I doubt very much if that is going to work. The
Dean Smith Bill has passed in the Senate and it's now
up to the Lower House. The additional amendments have
been knocked back as being unnecessary. Most MPs feel
that there are already enough religious protections in the
Bill as it is. And with time hopefully most rational
people will see that all this has been a storm in a teacup.
Which is as it should be in a secular society such as ours.

As far as the "keeping children safe" argument. That is the
choice that parents have to make as to what schools they
send their children to. Be it private or secular. And in
choosing they need to look at whether the schools do have
the "safe-schools" programs to which some parents may object.
Because these programs are not compulsory, not all schools
have them - and its up to the Principals of the schools
to decide whether their school is going to participate in having
these programs.

So concerns are unwarranted. Parents need to look after their own
children and their interests and not force their opinions
and concerns onto other people. Most of us do have choices
in life - but as far as same-sex marriage is concerned -
Australians have already voted. It is now up to Parliament to
ensure the wishes of the majority.

runner accuses me of being a leftie, stealing language and twisting it. I have done none of that. It was runner who labelled homosexuality as a 'lifestyle' and that is clearly an ignorant and bigoted lie.

Dear Cherful,

It is not just about Muslims versus Christians: government only cares for those established big religions and so-called-religions that are strong and might cost them in votes and only their concerns will appear in the Ruddock report - it doesn't give a damn for small groups of devotees and people's own private religions.

---

Dear Foxy,

«And with time hopefully most rational people will see that all this has been a storm in a teacup.»

The legal registration of same-sex marriages by itself has indeed been a storm in a teacup and really a non-issue, but it has exposed the wound that was there all along: that religious freedom is not guaranteed in Australia (or anywhere else).

Our very ability to serve God, keep our vows and follow our conscience, which is after all why life exists in the first place, is subjected to the will and kindness of government, even if you like, to the will and kindness of the majority of other people who live in this continent.

While there is currently no particular serious threat (except perhaps for Sikhs who cannot carry their daggers on planes) this is very scary and unacceptable.

The main thrust of the SSM debate was that a strong majority of people supported it by roughly 60% to 40%. What the opponents to the protection in the SSM act forget is that recent polling indicated that nearly 70% of those polled indicated that they favoured protections being legalized.

As for the safe schools re education program, not only is there is no choice of public schools as one is zoned to a school by where you live, and the suggestion that one pay for private schools to avoid the flawed safe schools program is pure bollocks.

My major problem is mainly that the SS program is factually incorrect. The entire concept of gender being fluid is complete crap as only 0.6% of the population does not identify as the sex they were born with and of the population in general roughly 96% are straight. I fail to see why the sex education program whose main purpose is to educate people on sexual health and relationships has to be completely distorted to conform to a new political ideal which may not include a single person in the class.

Dear SM,

«as only 0.6% of the population does not identify as the sex they were born with»

Why should anyone identify with a sex? Period.

«My major problem is mainly that the SS program is factually incorrect.»

My major problem is mainly that the SS program pushes people to identify with gender, sex and all that: it really doesn't matter which gender and what form of sex, it always ends in tears and a waste of one's precious life.

'It was runner who labelled homosexuality as a 'lifestyle' and that is clearly an ignorant and bigoted lie.'

and next you will be denying paedophile is not a ' lifestyle'. Try thinking minotaur. No one is forcing a man to commit sodomy. Next you will be telling me its in the genes.

Well that's it for me. I won't bother with marriage, again,
& I doubt most kids born today will, at least the heterosexual ones.

I have begun to promote new titles for these special people, now that they feel they have begun a new journey in a new world. In celebrating this new beginning the people in question can now also celebrate a new and individual title thereby clearly identifying them and making them stand tall in the community of the future.
Moving forward in this new world 'they' shall, from this day forward, be known as a 'GAI' person or a group of 'GAIZ'. I think it is a befitting tribute to a 'special' people who planned and executed a well fought battle. They can now truly go forth with 'pride'.

//the Muslims control
whole suburbs where they practise their religion as they wish and the police enter these
areas on tiptoe, and defer to big Muslim males who stand around in big intimidating
male groups.//

No, that's bullshite. The Police go wherever they damn well please (with appropriate warrants) and anybody who tries to obstruct them gets arrested.

//This is particularly true in the UK and Europe.//

No, once again you have been misled. Don't believe everything you read on Facebook.

http://www.snopes.com/sweden-crime-no-go-zone-police/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/trump-london-no-go-zones-radicalised-woolwich-reddit-video-a6766511.html

//Sure they may not get away with murder but blocking off streets to pray//

Seriously? Parking issues outside mosques are the basis of your claim that they live outside the law? Very amusing.

//would be stopped pretty quickly if the Christians did it.//

Nope, the local Baptist church is in my street. It's not a large street, and the church has insufficient parking. So without fail, every Sunday morning and occasionally for funerals and weddings, the buggers jam up the entire bottom half of the street. And nobody tells them to stop worshipping, because there'd be an outcry if they did. Although they really should get somebody out to ticket them all, good way to raise revenue. Some may consider it unsporting to ticket a person while they're at church... I say that if they don't want to get ticketed then they shouldn't park illegally.

//The Muslims, who run shops and businesses, would in a lot of cases not support a gay wedding, dont see them being told they must not do this.//

Nope, they're subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as everybody else. There are some exemptions on anti-discrimination when it comes to religious organisations, but they don't apply to private enterprise run by religious individuals.

//Moving forward in this new world 'they' shall, from this day forward, be known as a 'GAI' person//

Wow, spelling gay with an i in uppercase. Pretty edgy, dude.

Toni, I know. Pretty out there stuff eh? Don't forget you can use upper or lower case. For example, GAI, or Gai or gai. And let's not forget GAIZ or Gaiz or gaiz. Now, now no need to thank me. I am just happy to have been of service. We can now repatriate the word GAY and the GAIZ can now walk with 'pride' over having their own personal words to describe them. No longer having to share such a 'flowery' word to describe such a strong and determined bunch of people. No they can move forward in this new world re-affirming they are finally 'unique' and 'special'.

"No, that's bullshite. The Police go wherever they damn well please (with appropriate warrants) and anybody who tries to obstruct them gets arrested."

No, thats just what they tell you.
The only one talking rubbish is you Toni.

- So if I posted a video entitled 'Muslim Mob Chases Cops from 'No Go Zones' in the UK' with 274,000 views, I suppose you'd say that doesn't exist?
http://youtu.be/Dao89RedIco

And if I posted a video entitled 'No-Go Zones: Lawless areas do exist and increasing in France - police' then let me guess?
Doesn't exist?
http://youtu.be/FmZRGjLZt_M

So you'd see this and be like:
Shocking scenes from a Muslim no-go zone in Europe
http://youtu.be/J04Ej1DYO4o
"Charter Boat? What charter boat?"

No, you wouldn't would you, because it doesn't exist?

You see in order to do this to our societies, they have to convince us it doesn't exist.

Rapes in Sweden? Doesn't exist?
If you want to be an ignorant or guillible fool that's fine but stop trying to peer pressure everyone else with your 'Charter boat' ideology.

Why don't you go read a book?
Start with 'Bloodlines of the Illuminati' since you say that doesn't exist either.
I started reading it yesterday and did the first 4 chapters, will finish it today.
Best book I ever read, I actually felt my IQ increasing reading it.
YOU ALL SHOULD READ IT.
http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=NoneDare

The problem with you is you 'think' you're smart;
Or should I say: You think you know everything when you don't.
I don't claim to know everything - I learned long ago that it's easier to just say 'I don't bloody know' than to be caught out looking stupid.
I don't let my ego dig my own hole for me.
Obviously you haven't learned this, yet.

I voted for the proposal but with serious misgivings based on concerns about views such as those expressed by the author of this article.

I could not see a way to act in good faith on the first despite the latter. The survey unfortunately did not allow for people voting on a particular form of legislation (not did it explore related issues such as plural marriages which should have been explored at the same time).

My objection to the exemptions is that they don't go far enough. Anybody not in receipt of public money for performing a service or holding some kind of government imposed monopoly on that service should be free to provide that service or not based on their preferences, invisible friend or not.

That will of course hurt some but the idea of compelling people to engage in a business arrangement against their own principles is a far worse outcome.

I wonder how long before the author and those who think like him manage to destroy the good will that lead to the outcome of the vote by actions demonstrating a massive intolerance of others. By trying to make an example of someone trying to live by their own conscience and have them bullied into submission by the power of the state.

R0bert

AC, I have trouble reading large passages. I wonder off into space and get distracted to the point I get pissed off, and give it away. Try again another day. Anyway, as you are reading up on the 'illuminati', and you know it is one of my pet subjects, I would like to know your thoughts on what you find.
I realise it is off topic so maybe you can start a new topic to discuss the illuminati and the Rothschilds? Thank you.

Oh dear...runner's desperation and outright ignorance becomes more and more evident. Introducing 'pedophiles' is pathetic. Truly pathetic. People who resort to such tactics simply are not worth engaging with any further.

A marriage celebrant will have a certificate which authorises him on behalf of the state to conduct the marriage of any two adults qualified by law to marry.

The celebrant is obliged as a condition of retaining the celebrant's certificate to conduct the marriage of any qualified couple who ask him to do so.

The celebrant may be but is not required to be a cleric of a religious organisation, but no religious or other organisation can absolve a celebrant of the obligation of carrying out his duty to the state.

Of course "him" and "his" refers to "him or her" and "his or her". Duh!

None of that is rocket science.

The beat-up clamour for protecting religious rights is really about protecting unjustified religious privilege.

EJ,

A wedding celebrant is not required to to conduct the marriage of any qualified couple who ask him to do so. He can choose based on location, time and any set of variables that are convenient to him. He can also discriminate against gay couples if he so wishes, he does not even have to give a reason, only if the complainant can prove that it was discriminatory would he have any case whatsoever.

Dear Julian,

Clerics can perform weddings without being marriage-celebrants on behalf of the state or in fact, without having any other obligations to the state.

And this is what I hope they will do in future.

@Yuyutsu and Shadow Minister

Lawful marriage of a couple involves the state in that it confers on the couple the rights and obligations legislated by the state.

It is up to the state who it empowers to do this.

A person empowered to conduct a marriage is currently allowed to disqualify a couple on general grounds dictated by the celebrant's religious cult. The Roman Catholic cult, for example, excludes marriage of a divorced person. If the pollies are going to debate freedom of religion they should strip this privilege from religious cults and oblige celebrants to conduct any lawful marriage or lose their licence to conduct marriages recognised by the state. As required by Section 116 of the Constitution if a government has the guts to apply it.

SSM legislation extends to same sex couples the same criteria as apply to other couples.

The best reference I could find for the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion, which embraces the much more important freedom FROM religion, is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_116_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia#Judicial_consideration

Dear Julian,

«Lawful marriage of a couple involves the state in that it confers on the couple the rights and obligations legislated by the state.»

It is not unlawful to marry without involving the state.

If the state is not informed of the marriage, then of course it wouldn't register it and wouldn't "confer" any rights or obligations on the couple - but who wants these anyway?!

So it is my hope that churches and other religious organisations, from now on will no longer involve the state. As far as the state is concerned, much fewer people will be considered to be married - and that's a great outcome.