What do people from countries that already have same-sex marriage think of Australia's debate

What do people from countries that already have same-sex marriage think of Australia's debate

IF THE postal survey goes the way pollsters predict, Australians will give a resounding Yes to same-sex marriage on November 15.

But pro-SSM campaigners are increasingly nervous a rearguard action by conservative MPs could mean if they win, gay Australians will lose anyway.

Head of the Equality Campaign, Tiernan Brady, told news.com.au if some politicians got their way, the price for Yes could be the rights of parents in same-sex families watered down and services denied to gay people. Shops could even bar LGBTI customers, he said.

“The No side have made it very clear that in the event of a Yes victory they will try to unravel existing anti-discrimination legislation,” Mr Brady said. “To single out gay people for discrimination is utterly disgraceful.”

If a same-sex marriage law heavily influenced by conservative MPs gets legs, politicians that voted Yes may find themselves in the bizarre position of being unable to vote for legislation that would legalise same-sex marriage.

We’re on the final leg of Australia’s $122 million same-sex marriage survey and the polls are mixed. On Thursday, Griffith University released analysis of tweets on the subject of gay marriage which they said could point to a narrow No victory. David Tuffley and Bela Stantic used the same technique to accurately predict the result of the 2016 Presidential election which saw Donald Trump become US President.

But, multiple other polls show Yes leading No by a large gap. A Galaxy poll of 1000 people, commissioned by PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), found 66 per cent of people had voted Yes and 78 per cent of Australians wanted gay and straight couples to be treated equally.

An independent news.com.au online poll, of 85,000 people, has an even higher result for Yes with 70 per cent of people in favour of same-sex marriage.

The latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show 12.3 million of the 16 million eligible voters, or 77 per cent, had returned their forms by last Friday.

Despite the potentially huge numbers backing Yes, those opposed to the law change are making a concerted effort to use the ensuing legislation to wind back laws already in place to protect LGBTI people — even in areas unrelated to marriage.





Conservative MPs haven’t gone into detail, but their wishlist could include lessening hate speech laws, axing legislation that gives same-sex parents the same rights as straight parents, barring gay couples from accessing IVF and allowing parents to remove kids from any school lesson that even fleetingly mentions gay people.

There is also the prospect of businesses being given the green light to refuse to serve anyone who is gay, not just those organising same-sex weddings.

Many of the proposed changes would involve stripping away Australia’s anti-discrimination legislation which protects people based on innate characteristics — such as sexuality — bar a small number of exceptions, usually for religious organisations.

If Yes wins, the actual mechanism to change the law to allow gay couples to wed would be through a marriage bill voted on by MPs.

Currently, a draft bill exists. Written by Liberal Senator Dean Smith, it is backed by many on the Yes side and endorsed by Labor.

Mr Smith’s draft legislation includes a number of exemptions to the law including allowing both religious ministers and marriage celebrants to refuse to officiate same-sex weddings.

The bill would also allow organisations with a solid link to a religious body to opt out. A church, for example, could refuse to rent its hall out for a same-sex wedding.

But some want the exemptions to go further — much further.

This week, it was reported conservative MPs were now drawing up as many as 100 amendments to the bill.

These would be wideranging, according to MP Ian Goodenough who told news.com.au he was working with a gaggle of MPs on major changes. In a phrase that will chill the spine of LGBTI Australians, he said these changes could go “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.

The Coalition for Marriage, the group stating the case for No, has told news.com.au Mr Smith’s bill was “fundamentally inadequate” and had “failed to address the concerns of millions raised throughout the campaign”.

Sticking to the No’s line that same-sex marriage and schooling were intrinsically linked, a spokeswoman said the bill afforded no protection to faith schools, “in relation to whether they will be forced to teach radical LGBTIQ sex and gender ideology”.

Along with Mr Goodenough, the push back is being led by MP Andrew Hastie, Senator Eric Abetz and Australian Conservatives leader Cory Bernardi. Former prime ministers John Howard and Tony Abbot are also expected to call for multiple carve outs in any marriage law.

There are other clues to how No campaigners would like to see laws change. The Marriage Alliance has flagged the possibility of a bill that would extend the grounds parents can withdraw children from school to any lessons that might depict same-sex relationships as “normal”.

The Australian Christian Lobby has called for anti-discrimination laws to be “overridden” so businesses can operate “in accordance with their beliefs”.

Another plan is to widen those who can opt out of providing services to same-sex weddings to “conscientious objectors” — in other words, anyone.

Last year, Mr Bernardi posed the question: “Is it OK for any business to say they simply don’t want your business for any or no reason? Personally I think it is.”

The Equality Campaign’s Mr Brady said winding back equality laws would affect more than just gay people.

“To deny service to whomever you want for whatever reason you want would be a total dismantling of the existing anti-discrimination laws that have served Australia well — and not just LGBTI people but people of faith and different ethnic communities all of who are protected,” he said.

Mr Brady said there was a worrying whiff of double standards at the heart of the plans.

“Are they proposing that people should be allowed to deny service to those that have had sex before marriage, have used contraceptives, have divorced and remarried?” he questioned. “Or is it just against gay people?

“Both proposals are bad, but to single out gay people for discrimination is utterly disgraceful ... and the Australian people don’t want that.”

Mr Smith backed the comments, telling the West Australian, singling out gay people to be treated lesser to others wouldn’t fly.

“Very, very few Australians would agree that one discrimination should be removed and replaced with other discriminations,” he said.

Neither Mr Goodenough nor the Coalition for Marriage would clarify whether their proposals extended further than just LGBTI people.

Just.equal spokesman, and long-time marriage equality campaigner, Rodney Croome said he wasn’t surprised at the furious efforts to add amendments to the bill. But it was the reaction to the plans that mattered, he told news.com.au.

“The issue is not that hard line Liberals want to create new forms of discrimination against same-sex couples in return for the right to marry,” Mr Croome said.

“It’s whether moderate Liberals, opposition and crossbenchers and the LGBTI community accept those compromises.

“If Australia votes Yes it will be for full equality for LGBTI, not further discrimination”.

LGBTI Australians will be hoping the first day they can marry is not also the first day they are divorced from reams of other laws that were supposed to protect them.

benedict.brook@news.com.au