Yes advocates label proposed same-sex marriage law, backed by No campaign, a ‘licence to discriminate’

YES campaigners have said a proposed same-sex marriage law is so poorly written even heterosexuals could find themselves discriminated against.

YES advocates have warned that a proposed new same-sex marriage law is so full of religious and moral exemptions, it could permit shops to put up signs saying “no gays” and businesses to deny service to straight couples who have sex before marriage.

One advocate has said the new bill, backed chiefly by politicians opposed to same-sex marriage, could see state-sanctioned discrimination harking back to the days of the White Australia policy.

A new same-sex marriage bill, spruiked on Monday by Liberal Senator James Paterson, would create the category of a person who holds “relevant marriage beliefs” — that is, supports the existing laws restricting marriage to between a man and a woman. These beliefs can be due to religion or merely a “conscientious” objection but would allow business owners to discriminate if they believed “sexual relations should only occur within a marriage”.

But the backers of the bill, that will only make it to Parliament if the survey goes Yes, say it “preserves the freedoms of all Australians”.

The result of the same-sex marriage survey will be announced at 10am on Wednesday. As the vote has no legal standing, a parliamentary vote will still be needed on a bill before gay people can wed under civil law.

Up to this point, there has only been one bill on the table, from Liberal Senator Dean Smith. This includes opt outs meaning religious ministers and celebrants wouldn’t have to officiate at same-sex weddings.

Mr Smith’s bill is backed by moderate Liberals, Labor and the Yes campaign.

BATTLE OF THE BILLS

But a battle of the bills is brewing with Senator Paterson’s proposal now in play.

While Mr Paterson has said he voted Yes, the bill he has drafted follows a concerted push back by No campaigning politicians — including Eric Abetz, Andrew Hastie and Cory Bernardi — against Mr Smith’s proposal.

Earlier this month, conservative Liberal MP Ian Goodenough told news.com.au he wanted a new same-sex marriage law to contain exemptions that went, “beyond the wedding ceremony”.

“The focus will be in the area of preserving parental rights, freedom of speech, and institutional considerations such as curriculum in schools, access to reproductive technology, correctional facilities, etc,” Mr Goodenough said.

It’s not OK to replace old discriminations with new discriminations. Equality before the law is simply that #Auspol #marriageequality

— Christine Forster (@resourcefultype) November 12, 2017

But why aren’t you protecting the freedoms of people who conscientiously object to interracial marriage?

— Tim Watts MP (@TimWattsMP) November 12, 2017

While Senator Paterson’s bill doesn’t go that far, the exemptions are much broader than Mr Smith’s proposed law and, in some areas, would override existing anti-discrimination legislation.

Exemptions would be extended beyond just religious ministers and celebrants to anyone who merely has a “conscientious” objection against same-sex marriage. Bakers could refuse to bake cakes for same-sex weddings and florists to provide flowers.

“I’ve never believed that allowing same-sex couples to marry needs to come at the expense of the freedoms of other Australians,” Senator Paterson said.

The bill would also allow parents to remove their children from classes they believe may mention same-sex marriage.

However, some critics have argued passages underlining the right of parents to take children from classes they consider offensive are redundant.

“You already have that power. You can take your kid from geology class if you think God made rocks,” one source said.

Liberal MP Dean Smith’s bill allows religious ministers and celebrants to opt out of same sex weddings.

Liberal Senator James Paterson’s new bill would mean anyone with a “conscientious” objection could refuse service to a gay couple’s wedding. Picture: David Geraghty.

NOT JUST GAY COUPLES

Anna Brown, of The Equality Campaign said Mr Smith’s original bill struck a “fair balance” between LGBTI couples having equal access to marriage and people practising their religious beliefs.

But, she said, the new proposal was a unique “licence to discriminate” against gay people.

The Equality Campaign released polling on Monday which they said showed Australians were against rolling back anti-discrimination laws. Given the example of a Catholic baker refusing to supply a gay couple with a wedding cake, only 22 per cent of respondents agreed that was acceptable.

“Australia turned its back on this type of discrimination when it ended the White Australia policy and extended equal rights to indigenous Australians in the 1967 referendum,” said Ms Brown.

Alex Greenwich, also of the Equality Campaign, said the “relevant marriage beliefs’ in the bill were so broad they could trap more than just gay couples.

“The bill could potentially go as far as denying couples who have had sex or children before marriage, divorced people and same-sex couples everything from flowers at anniversaries to vaccines for honeymoons.”

There could be a high price for same-sex marriage

OFFENSIVE

Rodney Croome, a long time marriage equality advocate and spokesman for campaign group Just Equal, said if the No side loses on Wednesday they shouldn’t be in the position of being the lead creators of a law to enable same-sex marriage.

“The Australian people have heard again and again that marriage equality will diminish freedom of speech and parental rights but if there is a Yes vote this means they have conclusively rejected that kind of fearmongering.

“It means that they have voted for full equality, not discrimination in new forms.”

Mr Croome said he feared if that if the Paterson bill went through unchallenged it would lead to sights not seen in Australia for decades.

“What I find offensive is allowing commercial businesses to turn away same-sex couples if their relationship offends the owners. That is tantamount to allowing business owners to put a sign in windows saying ‘no gays’.

“Older Australians will remember a time before anti-discrimination laws when business owners would put signs up saying ‘No blacks, no Asians, no Jews’.

“Australia has moved on from that and we should not go back.”

Cabinet minister Mathias Cormann said his personal instinct was the Smith bill was “probably a good starting position” because it had been subject to a cross-party Senate committee process.

“But I suspect it will need improvement in terms of strengthening religious protections,” he told ABC radio on Monday.

[e-mail] | @BenedictBrook