Same Sex Marriage Survey

[davidc4430]

a week out from result day and allready cracks apearing on the govt side,

Same-sex marriage: 'More than a dozen' conservatives prepare alternative bill to protect religious freedoms

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-09/conservatives-to-sponsor-alternative-same-sex-marriage-bill/91...

any chance a simple change to the law "IF" the survey says YES, looks doomed allready.

we were promised, if we allowed this stupid survey to be held and if it was a yes result then it would be a simple change to the wording of the act and that will be that.

oh but here come the 'well, how about we add this, and this, oh and we dont want that.....ect ect.

again i fully expect malcom to be a 'yes' man, saying yes to whatever the guys keeping him in the PMs chair say.

[bright.ton42]

Give me a break.   

It is getting beyond ridiculous. 

Let the pollies  find another toy to play with like getting on with running the country properly.   

[this-one-time-at-bandcamp]

I wonder how some other couple's choice of partners is impacting the "religious freedoms"  of the mouth-breathers?

[springyzone]

---

@this-one-time-at-bandcamp wrote:

I wonder how some other couple's choice of partners is impacting the "religious freedoms"  of the mouth-breathers?

---

I don't actually know what is in this new bill but it sounds as if it might be something along the lines of-if same sex marriage becomes legal, then perhaps religious institutions will not be legally bound to provide marriage to such a couple.

I'd be in favour of that sort of bill. I know some people will say-oh but no one would want to be married by a person who didn't want to marry them, where it felt as if the celebrant only did it under duress.

Most people no, but there would definitely be some who would want to push the barriers.

I think it would be fair enough for religious groups to have the right to say no. I think there would still be a lot who would say yes, and there are thousands of non-religious celebrants too. I'd say most people don't have religious ceremonies these days anyway. Been a while since I went to one, they've all been celebrants.

[davidc4430]

dont they (priests ect) allready have the ability to refuse to marry whoever they choose not to?

i watch 'the doctor blake mysterys' and the doctors GF/Fiance is a divorcee and her church (priest) refuses to allow her to be remarried in their church.

i know its set in the 50's so maybe they changed it.

just if they can refuse because someone is divorced why couldnt they not marry someone because they are gay?

[springyzone]

---

@davidc4430 wrote:

dont they (priests ect) allready have the ability to refuse to marry whoever they choose not to?

i watch 'the doctor blake mysterys' and the doctors GF/Fiance is a divorcee and her church (priest) refuses to allow her to be remarried in their church.

i know its set in the 50's so maybe they changed it.

just if they can refuse because someone is divorced why couldnt they not marry someone because they are gay?

---

I think they can refuse, especially if someone is not a parishioner.

With divorce, the lines are a bit blurred nowadays. I think in the past marrying a divorced person in the catholic church was a total no-no but I know several people who are divorced but remarried their partner up to 2 decades ago in a catholic church. Maybe the first marriage was termed an annulment I have no idea. The thing is, I don't know there is specifically any general law about it except that a divorced person is free to remarry.

But the area of sexual discrimination may be a bit murky. If the law specifically states you cannot discriminate along sexual lines when marrying someone, then that could put religious institutions at risk of being sued. They may need a specific exclusion clause.

I don't have any legal expertise, that is just what i am wondering.

[bright.ton42]

It would be a cold day in hell before the RC s  would marry anyone of the same sex.   And hey if they are sued think of the billions in the Vatican museum to pay for it.    

[davidc4430]

like you, i have no legal expertise either

it just seems if relgious people have the ability to not marry one couple because of xyz, then adding 'g' to it shouldnt be a problem.

but i guess if it needs to be made legal for a person to refuse to marry 2 gay people id be ok with that.

no one ought to be forced to marry them if they dont want to, no reason needs to be given IMO.

i really think its prolly a storm in a teacup, there are bound to be plenty who will willingly marry them, cater their day ect ect.

business is business, money in the bank usualy overides most things.

what happens in all the places allready allowing SSM? i havent noticed any all out wars starting in those places.

[davidc4430]

i may be proven wrong but i fear we will now (if the yes votes gotten up)

be heading into the many excuses why we cant just have the vote ASAP and put this item to bed once and for all.

i just think the whole plebicite/survey call it what you will was a delaying tactic and if you thought the "NO" side was going to go meekly away well i just dont see that happening.

[lyndal1838]

David and Springy.....I think a lot of the objections from the No Vote are to do with what will happen in schools.

If the Yes vote gets up and running the schools will be forced to include gay s3x education in all schools no matter what objections are made by the parents.

To me it is a dreadful thought but as it is already being taught in some "progressive" schools it is really only a matter of time before it is taught in all schools, no matter what the outcome of the vote is.