Progress on Australian Same Sex Marriage Bill

[Warrigal]

Members who have read something on this topic may know that Australia is on the brink of making marriage between two adults, regardless of gender, legal in every state and territory.

A nationwide postal survey was conducted and the YES vote prevailed in every state and territory with a 62% majority overall.

Now a clean bill has passed the Senate. There were a number of attempts to add various amendments but this was seen as simply a delaying tactic and all were rejected.

Today the unamended bill was presented to the House of Reps and the PM has promised that it will be passed and in effect by Christmas. He has told the members that they won't be breaking at the end of this week unless it is. Amendments will be rejected on the numbers.

Today was a first. One MP, a Mr Tim Wilson, proposed to his long term partner Ryan from the floor of the House.
Here he is blowing a kiss to Ryan who is watching from the gallery.

This has taken a long time but very soon the whole of Australia will take a big leap forward. In my lifetime we have gone from arresting and gaoling homosexual men to finally treating LGBTI people equally under the law.

 

[Warrigal]

One of the arguments against the SSM bill is one of religious freedom. Nonsense about wedding cakes and florists was raised in the NO campaign. Proposed amendments to allow discrimination against same sex couples on the grounds of 'conscience' have been attempted and all have been defeated.

This is a statement by a number of Anglican bishops, supporting the current version of the SSM bill

Anglican bishops break ranks to support Dean Smith's same-sex marriage bill

A group of Anglican bishops has split with some of the church's top leaders to declare support for the current version of the same-sex marriage bill before Parliament, publicly calling on lower house MPs to resist the conservative push to insert stronger religious protections.

The House of Representatives will begin debating the bill drafted by Liberal senator Dean Smith on Monday and is expected to pass it by the end of the week. If it passes unchanged it will then be signed into law, and same-sex weddings will occur within weeks.

However Coalition conservatives are set on amending the bill, which passed the Senate 43 votes to 12 last week, without change. If they manage to get enough support for their changes around freedom of religion and conscience the bill will have to return to the Senate. (Not going to happen. The numbers are not there.)

As Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull confirmed he would support some of those changes in a bid to guard against any "unintended consequences", seven Anglican bishops wrote to all lower house MPs to show not all religious leaders believe amendments are necessary.

Organised by the Bishop of Wangaratta, John Parkes, the bishops say Senator Smith's bill should be approved as it stands.

"It preserves the fabric of our anti-discrimination laws, which have been developed over half a century," they say. "These give expression to democratic values of equality and fairness. It also accords fulsome recognition of the religious rights and freedoms that underpin a democratic, plural and multicultural society."

The letter points to a deepening split inside the Anglican church over same-sex marriage. Sydney Archbishop Glenn Davies was a strong backer of the "no" campaign, donating $1 million to that cause during the three-month postal survey campaign and describing Senator Smith's bill as "wholly inadequate". And the head of the church in Australia, Archbishop Philip Freier, was public about voting "no" in the survey.

...

A further range of amendments was moved by conservative MPs in the Senate last week but voted down. Labor voted as a bloc on all amendments and had enough support from Coalition moderates and the crossbenches to ensure the bill passed in its original form.

It is widely believed those who want Senator Smith's bill passed without change will also have the numbers in the lower house. Labor is expected to continue to vote as a bloc against amendments, with the support of several crossbenchers and the Liberal MPs who co-signed the bill: Tim Wilson, Warren Entsch, Trevor Evans and Trent Zimmerman.

Labor's Tony Burke said the House of Representatives should not seek to amend bills that had already passed through the Senate. He said it would be "absurd" if the bill failed to pass Parliament because the two chambers could not agree by week's end.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...hs-samesex-marriage-bill-20171203-gzxksd.html

 

[Butterfly]

We've had a lot of the wedding cake/flowers, etc. nonsense over here, too.

I have very strong feelings that if a business sets itself out as a business to serve the public, it cannot refuse service to a member of a group/religion/minority or whatever else of which the owner of the business does not approve. That would be a VERY slippery slope backwards and could quickly lead back to such things as "No (whatevers) need apply" and the like. I certainly agree that ministers/rabbis should not have to perform marriage ceremonies of which their sect does not approve, but that's a whole different thing than a wedding cake or flowers.

 

[Warrigal]

Religious freedom does not include freedom to discriminate. We have laws now against discrimination because of race, gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation and religious organisations are allowed to refuse certain services even though they are lawful. For example a Catholic hospital will not perform abortions nor will they allow a new born to die behind a door if they are severely deformed. Religious schools can choose to only employ staff who follow church teaching re marriage and sexual morality. These exemptions are allowable and no minister, priest, iman or rabbi etc will be forced to marry a same sex couple but I know that in my denomination it will not be hard to find one ready and willing to do so.

I am Uniting Church and we thrashed out the issue of same sex attracted clergy about 20 years ago. Their orientation is not a barrier to ordination but it must still be discerned that they have a calling to ministry and are spiritually, psychologically and temperamentally suitable. The other condition is that they are in 'right relationship' with their partner. Promiscuity is not right relationship, nor is infidelity. Same sex couples have not until now been able to publically declare their commitment and have it recognised as a legal marriage. The first same sex marriages in the Uniting Church will probably be of clergy couples.

However, the argument being put forward by opponents of SSM is freedom of conscience. A florist, wedding organiser, venue manager or cake decorator under this extension would be able to refuse service because they object to homosexuality or same sex marriage if an amendment along these lines is successful. Right now this is not a right and it will not be when the bill is passed because the majority of MPs are determined to vote down all amendments. Only a clean bill will be passed. This will confer all rights and obligations of marriage as we understand it on couples who identify as LGBTI without any quibbles.

 

[Shalimar]

We have had same sex marriage for over a decade. There has been no uproar whatsoever. Individual church congregations
retain the right to refuse to marry a same sex couple if they wish. Civil ceremonies are open to all. It has become mainstream.

 

[Butterfly]

The wedding cake thing is before our Supreme Court right now. I hope they make the right decision.

 

[Aunt Bea]

The wedding cake thing was upsetting to me when I first started hearing about it but I've decided that it is better to deal with an old school in your face bigot rather than one that will greet you with a big smile and then do something nasty or underhanded behind the scenes. I believe that in these days of social media the bigots will be quickly dealt with in the marketplace and eventually do what is best for their bottom line or be out of business. I am still very interested in the arguments and final decision of the Supremes on this issue.

 

[rgp]

The wedding cake thing is before our Supreme Court right now. I hope they make the right decision.

And I hope that decision is that each has a right to their own way. I hope the baker retains the right to say no. And not participate in the wedding in any way. And the couple retains the right to go to any other baker....{there are thousands} and obtain their wedding cake.

I do not believe that one persons rights should be pushed aside to grant another's.

 

[Sunny]

. I believe that in these days of social media the bigots will be quickly dealt with in the marketplace and eventually do what is best for their bottom line or be out of business.

Good point, Aunt Bea. I don't think this case has been decided yet, but just in case Kennedy goes along with the religious conservatives (not too likely) and the bigots "win" this one, the public still has the power of the marketplace. There should be well-publicized notices listing those bakers, and any other providers of products or services, who refuse to do business with particular groups.

Of course, this could be a tricky issue. What if a prominent white supremicist wants to order a cake with a swastika from a Jewish baker? In these crazy times, it could happen.

 

[rgp]

Good point, Aunt Bea. I don't think this case has been decided yet, but just in case Kennedy goes along with the religious conservatives (not too likely) and the bigots "win" this one, the public still has the power of the marketplace. There should be well-publicized notices listing those bakers, and any other providers of products or services, who refuse to do business with particular groups.

Of course, this could be a tricky issue. What if a prominent white supremicist wants to order a cake with a swastika from a Jewish baker? In these crazy times, it could happen.

So the guy is a bigot, just because he does not believe in same sex marriage, and chooses not to participate in said union ?

As for the "marketplace" ? I think he'll do just fine.

Oddly, just announced that this will be the topic on the 9:00 o'clock hour radio talk show.

 

[Sunny]

He'll do just fine with the bigot clientele.

I think this is an old, time-tested way of dealing with businesses or professional people who are "outed" as having extreme political or religious views. Some people go along with them anyway, others refuse to have anything to do with them. Their bottom line suffers, no question about it.

About "not believing in same sex marriage," since when does a provider of wedding cakes have to "believe" in the principles behind that wedding? What if he is, say, an atheist? Should he refuse to provide a wedding cake to anyone who is having a religious ceremony, because he doesn't believe in it?

 

[rgp]

He'll do just fine with the bigot clientele.

I think this is an old, time-tested way of dealing with businesses or professional people who are "outed" as having extreme political or religious views. Some people go along with them anyway, others refuse to have anything to do with them. Their bottom line suffers, no question about it.

About "not believing in same sex marriage," since when does a provider of wedding cakes have to "believe" in the principles behind that wedding? What if he is, say, an atheist? Should he refuse to provide a wedding cake to anyone who is having a religious ceremony, because he doesn't believe in it?

I never said he "had" to believe. I just said {as he does} that he doesn't...and he should not be forced to participate in any manner.

Why are we so quick to push aside his rights , to observe theirs? They can go to any other baker. IMO their goal is not to have a wedding cake but only to have their way.

 

[rgp]

He'll do just fine with the bigot clientele.

I think this is an old, time-tested way of dealing with businesses or professional people who are "outed" as having extreme political or religious views. Some people go along with them anyway, others refuse to have anything to do with them. Their bottom line suffers, no question about it.

About "not believing in same sex marriage," since when does a provider of wedding cakes have to "believe" in the principles behind that wedding? What if he is, say, an atheist? Should he refuse to provide a wedding cake to anyone who is having a religious ceremony, because he doesn't believe in it?

"He'll do just fine with the bigot clientele."

I see you're very quick to sling insults , start name calling . Yet try to profess a diverse approach....interesting.

 

[Sunny]

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

So, rpg, just substitute the word "bigot" for duck. It certainly makes sense.

Just FYI, if you go back and reread this thread up to this point, you will see that the word "bigot" was introduced into this conversation by Aunt Bea, not by me.

And my comment that he'll do just fine with the bigot clientele was a response to YOUR comment that in the marketplace, "he'll do just fine." Depends on your definition of fine, it would seem. If losing half of his potential customers is "just fine," that's a very strange business model.

Seems to me all the "insult slinging" is coming from you. Why are you personally so incensed about this, anyway?

 

[rgp]

"So, rpg, just substitute the word "bigot" for duck. It certainly makes sense.

Just FYI, if you go back and reread this thread up to this point, you will see that the word "bigot" was introduced into this conversation by Aunt Bea, not by me. "

Well its...rgp...but anyway.....bigot being introduced by who...is not the matter. The matter is you used it in direct reply to me.

Please point to where I slung any insults...?

And I am not incensed by any of it... I merely do not believe in pushing aside one persons "rights" so that another's can be "granted" .

As I indicated earlier, all they need do is go to another baker that may indeed be willing to fulfill their wishes.

No one is attempting to impede their nuptial's . This man only chooses not to participate commercially.

 

[Big Horn]

"So, rpg, just substitute the word "bigot" for duck. It certainly makes sense.

Just FYI, if you go back and reread this thread up to this point, you will see that the word "bigot" was introduced into this conversation by Aunt Bea, not by me. "

Well its...rgp...but anyway.....bigot being introduced by who...is not the matter. The matter is you used it in direct reply to me.

Please point to where I slung any insults...?

And I am not incensed by any of it... I merely do not believe in pushing aside one persons "rights" so that another's can be "granted" .

As I indicated earlier, all they need do is go to another baker that may indeed be willing to fulfill their wishes.

No one is attempting to impede their nuptial's . This man only chooses not to participate commercially.

Back when a business owner could legally refuse service to anyone for any reason there were no problems. Now, in these days when the government apparently shares business ownership, problems are continual.

The purpose of constitution rights is to safeguard everyone's rights, not just the rights of those who share the views of the entertainment media.

 

[Warrigal]

An update,

A final parliamentary vote on a bill to legalise same-sex marriage could come as early as today.

The bulk of speeches wrapped up in the lower house late on Wednesday night, after sitting hours were extended for a second day to allow extra debate.

MPs, around 120 of whom spoke on the issue, will now get the chance to propose and consider amendments before voting on the legislation itself.

Several government MPs, including Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, have said they will support or at least consider changes to be put forward by their conservative colleagues - namely Andrew Hastie and Michael Sukkar.

The Greens have also indicated they will propose amendments.

Labor will oppose any change, as will cabinet minister Christopher Pyne who branded some of them "superfluous".
If the bill passes unchanged from the one that cleared the Senate last week, it will become law.

I have listened to several of the speeches on the radio and I was impressed by the standard of debate. I have not heard all 120 of them but that number indicates how seriously the members are taking this issue. If the bill does not pass today, with or without amendments, the PM has said that he will recall parliament next week and they will continue to sit until it does. The Christmas break will be delayed. After that it will go to the Governor General for royal assent and it will become the law of the land that same sex couples will have the same rights as everyone else. This is a turning point in the history of Australia.

 

[Camper6]

The wedding cake thing was upsetting to me when I first started hearing about it but I've decided that it is better to deal with an old school in your face bigot rather than one that will greet you with a big smile and then do something nasty or underhanded behind the scenes. I believe that in these days of social media the bigots will be quickly dealt with in the marketplace and eventually do what is best for their bottom line or be out of business. I am still very interested in the arguments and final decision of the Supremes on this issue.

This bugs me. Keeripes is there only one wedding cake baker in the entire United States? If one guy won't bake it for you find someone else who will. If I own a business I should be able to bake for who I please. No big deal. If I was forced into you wouldn't like what I came up with. Go to Safeway. This insistence that I have to please everyone is nonsense.

Seinfeld. No soup for you.

 

[JaniceM]

We've had a lot of the wedding cake/flowers, etc. nonsense over here, too.

I have very strong feelings that if a business sets itself out as a business to serve the public, it cannot refuse service to a member of a group/religion/minority or whatever else of which the owner of the business does not approve. That would be a VERY slippery slope backwards and could quickly lead back to such things as "No (whatevers) need apply" and the like. I certainly agree that ministers/rabbis should not have to perform marriage ceremonies of which their sect does not approve, but that's a whole different thing than a wedding cake or flowers.

I agree with you.
Besides, I think it'd just make much more sense to bake a cake for "customers," sell flowers to "customers," etc., without being concerned about who the customers are or their so-called 'lifestyle.'

Decades ago, I went into a Thrifty's drugstore and saw a sign that said 'We reserve the right to refuse service to anybody'- made no sense to me whatsoever then, and it still doesn't.

 

[rgp]

This bugs me. Keeripes is there only one wedding cake baker in the entire United States? If one guy won't bake it for you find someone else who will. If I own a business I should be able to bake for who I please. No big deal. If I was forced into you wouldn't like what I came up with. Go to Safeway. This insistence that I have to please everyone is nonsense.

Seinfeld. No soup for you.

I agree....not to mention, why would someone insist on spending their money , with a merchant that doesn't want their business in the first place?

 

[Warrigal]

Camper, I agree, and I do think the case before SCOTUS was probably set up as some sort of test case.
It was a political, rather than a commercial transaction. There is bad blood on both sides IMO.

 

[Sunny]

This is a bad situation no matter which way it's resolved. If a business is forced to provide products or services, no matter to whom, or else get fined or whatever, there is still no way of ensuring that they will provide
good products or services. What if a Jewish baker feels compelled to provide a cake with a swastika to the local White Supremacists? What if a black baker is compelled to provide a cake to the KKK in the shape of a burning
cross? The only thing the merchant can do is provide the cake or whatever, but it can be a truly lousy cake, with the swastika nearly unidentifiable, etc.

And I guess this guy who is against gay marriage could do the same thing.

And if the Supreme Court sides with the merchant, it can be a very slippery slope back to the bad old days. In a big city, customers do have a lot of choices, but that's not so easy in sparsely populated areas.

 

[Butterfly]

Well, I believe that in our personal lives, we all have the right to bake cakes or whatever, for whomever we wish (or not). BUT, if you are in a commercial business serving the public, that changes the rules. You can't just decide you are going to refuse to trade with certain groups. It's commerce, not a religious act. I do not think the Bible addresses wedding cake baking (but it does address how we should treat other people), and I think the whole wedding cake/flower, etc., thing is just thinly veiled homophobia, anyway. Even if it were not, remember that in one European country many years ago one of the first acts of a rising government was to encourage people to refuse to trade with a certain religious group . . . .

Besides which, if the guy really just didn't want to bake the cake, why couldn't he just say he was booked up that weekend, or some such.

 

[Camper6]

I agree with you.
Besides, I think it'd just make much more sense to bake a cake for "customers," sell flowers to "customers," etc., without being concerned about who the customers are or their so-called 'lifestyle.'

Decades ago, I went into a Thrifty's drugstore and saw a sign that said 'We reserve the right to refuse service to anybody'- made no sense to me whatsoever then, and it still doesn't.

This guy baker is an artist type baker. He does 'themes'. And he is saying it's against his religion so he doesn't want to do it.

 

[Warrigal]

The bill passed the House of Reps this afternoon by an almost unanimous vote as members honoured the result of the postal survey.

Same-sex marriage bill passes House of Representatives, paving way for first gay weddings

Thu 7 Dec 2017, 6:10pm

Same-sex marriage will be legal in Australia, with Parliament agreeing to change the Marriage Act and end the ban on gay and lesbian couples marrying. Four members of the House of Representatives voted against the bill.

Liberal senator Dean Smith's bill will now become law after a day of cheers, tears and applause in the Lower House. People queued for access to the public gallery to witness the law being changed and by the time of the final vote, they were packed into every spot.

Same-sex marriage supporters wearing colourful "Yes" T-shirts clapped and cheered as amendments were voted down, prompting repeated warnings they should stop their barracking.
The public gallery led a chorus of We Are Australian after the final vote, with members of the parliament joining in from the floor of the House in tears.

There had been little doubt that this bill would pass with sweeping support from Nationals, Liberals, Greens, the crossbench and Labor. Opponents of same-sex marriage including Liberals Andrew Hastie, Kevin Andrews and Tony Abbott pushed for changes, but none of their amendments succeeded.

The legislation passed the Lower House three weeks after Senator Smith stood in the Senate and declared "it was not just a vote about a law but a vote about who we are as a people".

Senators supporting the bill huddled together on the side of the Lower House chamber to join the celebrations. Veteran same-sex marriage campaigner Warren Entsch was besieged by his colleagues. Earlier gay Liberal MP Trent Zimmerman noted Mr Entsch's long-standing advocacy, lauding him as an "honorary gay".

How did we get here?

It has been 13 years since the Howard government changed the Marriage Act to ensure same-sex marriage could not be legal. From that point, the Greens and Australian Democrats made repeated but unsuccessful attempts to overturn that decision, and Mr Entsch came to prominence with his passionate advocacy to allow gay marriage.

Five years ago, parliament had three bills before it to try to allow same-sex marriage: one in the Senate from the Greens, another a joint bill in the Lower House from Green Adam Bandt and independent Andrew Willkie, and a third from Labor's Stephen Jones. None succeeded.

The pivotal and ultimately successful manoeuvre came quietly and carefully more than a year ago.
It was a masterclass in political technique.

The Coalition's policy for a plebiscite was blocked in the Senate, but Attorney-General George Brandis started to ease the political gridlock by producing a draft bill anyway. That was on the basis that if a plebiscite was actually held and voters supported same-sex marriage, then a bill would be needed.

More political guile was evident in the way a Senate committee was chosen to examine that bill, with members including Senator Smith and fellow gay senator Louise Pratt, from Labor, as well as opponents of same-sex marriage like Nationals senator John Williams.

In a unanimous report, the committee laid the groundwork for the process that has ended today, by finding a way through the passionately held views on both sides of the debate. It set out that ministers of religion should be exempt from conducting same-sex marriages, finding there was consensus that religious freedom should be protected.

And crucially it said marriage could be simply defined as between two people.

Today's vote implements that, and the House of Representatives has overturned the change made by the Howard government in 2004 to limit marriage to being between a man and a woman.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-07/same-sex-marriage-bill-passes-house-of-representatives/9235560

All that is needed now is the signature of the Governor General for the process to be complete.