Now For The Backsliding !

The people of Australia have delivered their vote on the " Same Sex Marriage " question and it is little changed from what the opinion polls predicted.  Voting was not compulsory but every Australian on the voting roll was mailed an opportunity to vote and record their choice.  Sixty percent replied in the affirmative, while just thirty-two percent disagreed.

This clearly sends a message to the politicians that enacting the legislation to allow same sex marriage is the will of the Australian people, and we have been promised that a bill to that effect will go to a vote in the Federal parliament.   Despite the clarity this mini  referendum delivered, a hard core of politicians will ignore the will of the people and vote against this bill.

It is becoming clear that the tactics that will be used to delay bringing this bill to a vote will be the issue of   " religious freedom " - the right to refuse to provide services to same sex couples by those that oppose this concept on moral or religious grounds.   Opposition forces will demand that caterers, florists and all manner of trades that serve the wedding industry be protected from litigation if they refuse to serve same sex marriage customers.

That issue has already received a degree of protection.  The sponsors of the same sex marriage bill have promised that priests and ministers of religions that do not recognise same sex marriage will not be forced to solemnise and conduct such marriages.  For all other mere mortals, the normal right of deciding whether to provide services remains intact - just so long as they do not express a reason for so declining.   Whenever we seek the services for a wedding between a man and a woman we usually find many caterers, photographers, church venues and assorted services who are either booked solid for that day or who for other reasons decide not to quote a price for service - and that is their right.

The sticking point seems to be the concept of legal consequences that apply to anything that may be deemed to be any form of " discrimination ".   Our concept of law now decrees that it is no longer applicable to refuse service to some part of society because of the colour of their skin, their religious beliefs or their gender.  Our courts seem prepared to adjudicate on such matters and award substantial penalties in the form of compensation.

Unfortunately, same sex marriage is an emotive issue.  We can be sure that some people in the marriage services industries will loudly and publicly refuse service to a same sex couple because of their religious views and that this will be widely reported in the media.  When same sex marriage receives the legality afforded by an act of parliament that same refusal to provide a service will become an issue under the discrimination laws.

We would probably be wise to let it find its own level within the court system.  The vast majority of people with opposition to same sex marriage will probably adopt a cautionary approach to declining to provide a service by providing a " diplomatic " explanation, and the courts will need to be merciful with those who choose to bring their objection into the public domain.

The main issue is to implement the will of the people swiftly, and legislation before Christmas is the expectation.  If the politicians continue backsliding and avoiding bringing this issue to a vote it will exert pressure to use the High Court to introduce a form of a compulsory referendum as the way to implement issues that divide the parliament.

The politicians need to remember that they are not there as individuals to express their own views. Their function is to implement the will of the Australian people !