This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/nov/13/rival-same-sex-marriage-bill-to-trigger-coalition-showdown

The article has changed 10 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Rival same-sex marriage bill to trigger Coalition showdown Rival same-sex marriage bill to trigger Coalition showdown
(about 1 hour later)
A marriage bill allowing wide-ranging discrimination against same-sex weddings will be released by the Liberal senator James Paterson, in an attempt to force a Coalition party-room debate about which bill should be used to legislate marriage equality in the event of a yes vote. A marriage bill allowing wide-ranging discrimination against same-sex weddings has been released by the Liberal senator James Paterson in an attempt to force a Coalition party-room debate about which bill should be used to legislate marriage equality in the event of a yes vote.
According to a report in the Australian the bill would override state and territory anti-discrimination laws to allow refusal of same-sex weddings by anyone who holds a “conscientious belief” in traditional marriage, in effect allowing discrimination by private service providers even where they lack a contrary religious belief. The bill, released on Monday, would override state and territory anti-discrimination laws to allow the refusal of same-sex weddings by anyone who holds a religious or “conscientious belief” in traditional marriage, allowing discrimination by private service providers.
The bill also reportedly includes a clause allowing parents to remove their children from classes if they believe the values taught do not accord with a traditional view of marriage. The bill also includes a clause allowing parents to remove their children from classes if they believe the values taught do not accord with a traditional view of marriage.
Appearing on ABC News Breakfast, Paterson confirmed key details of the bill and said he intended to protect the freedoms of the 30% to 40% of Australians who were likely to have voted against same-sex marriage. Paterson told ABC News Breakfast he intended to protect the freedoms of the 30% to 40% of Australians who were likely to have voted against same-sex marriage.
Marriage equality advocates, Labor and Liberal moderates have criticised the move, calling for the Liberal senator Dean Smith’s bill to be used and warning parliament against introducing new forms of discrimination.
Paterson is a supporter of same-sex marriage who has been outspoken about the need to protect religious freedom. His sponsorship of the bill is designed to counter suggestions by the education minister, Simon Birmingham, that it would be “illogical” for conservative opponents of marriage equality to be the ones to propose a bill.Paterson is a supporter of same-sex marriage who has been outspoken about the need to protect religious freedom. His sponsorship of the bill is designed to counter suggestions by the education minister, Simon Birmingham, that it would be “illogical” for conservative opponents of marriage equality to be the ones to propose a bill.
The Paterson bill is expected to enjoy substantial support from that quarter as it implements demands from Tony Abbott, Matt Canavan, Michael Sukkar, Zed Seselja, Andrew Hastie, Eric Abetz and Kevin Andrews. The Paterson bill is expected to enjoy substantial support from that quarter as it implements demands from Tony Abbott, Matt Canavan, Ian Goodenough, Michael Sukkar, Zed Seselja, Andrew Hastie, Eric Abetz and Kevin Andrews.
The results of the marriage law survey will be announced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics on Wednesday but Malcolm Turnbull’s commitment to facilitate an unspecified private member’s bill in the event of a yes vote has unleashed infighting in the government about which bill to use.The results of the marriage law survey will be announced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics on Wednesday but Malcolm Turnbull’s commitment to facilitate an unspecified private member’s bill in the event of a yes vote has unleashed infighting in the government about which bill to use.
The Liberal senator Dean Smith has produced a bill out of the recommendations of a Senate committee inquiry that is co-signed by four Liberal moderates, enjoys support from Labor and qualified support from the Greens, who intend to seek amendments. Smith has produced a bill out of the recommendations of a Senate committee inquiry that is co-signed by four Liberal moderates, enjoys support from Labor and qualified support from the Greens, who intend to seek amendments.
According to the Australian the Paterson bill could be tabled in parliament as early as Wednesday and debated at the Coalition party room in two weeks, although Smith has said he will introduce his bill on Thursday, immediately after the survey result. According to a report in the Australian the Paterson bill could be tabled in parliament as early as Wednesday and debated at the Coalition party room in two weeks, although Smith has said he will introduce his bill on Thursday, immediately after the survey result.
The Paterson bill reportedly shields service providers from discrimination law for refusing goods and services that are directly related to a same-sex wedding, allowing discrimination by businesses such as florists, bakers, hotels, photographers and function centres. The Paterson bill shields service providers from discrimination law for refusing goods and services that are directly related to a same-sex wedding, allowing discrimination by businesses such as florists, bakers, hotels, photographers and function centres.
It would introduce “anti-detriment” provisions to shield government employees and licensed professionals from adverse action on the basis of the fact the person holds a belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. It would introduce “anti-detriment” provisions that prevent government authorities from taking adverse action on the basis of the fact the person holds a belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, including in the spheres of employment and licensing professionals such as doctors.
Charities that do not believe in same-sex marriage could not be stripped of their charitable status, while religious schools and institutions would be protected in teaching traditional marriage. The bill allows people who believe they have been “victimised” on the basis of their marriage beliefs to seek court orders, injunctions and damages for loss suffered.
Charities that do not believe in same-sex marriage could not be stripped of their charitable status, while religious schools and institutions would be protected in teaching marriage that marriage is between a man and a woman.
“If the parliament opts for a narrower bill with fewer protections, I fear we will see some Australians seek to impose their values on others, with court cases and other legal mechanisms,” Paterson warned.“If the parliament opts for a narrower bill with fewer protections, I fear we will see some Australians seek to impose their values on others, with court cases and other legal mechanisms,” Paterson warned.
“No one should want to see the messy court cases that have occurred after same-sex marriage was legalised in other countries.”“No one should want to see the messy court cases that have occurred after same-sex marriage was legalised in other countries.”
Marriage equality advocates including the Equality Campaign’s Tiernan Brady and Just Equal’s Rodney Croome have questioned why legislating same-sex marriage should include the right to discriminate against same-sex weddings when discrimination laws protect inter-faith and inter-racial marriages and marriage of divorced people. The deputy Labor leader, Tanya Plibersek, told Radio National the Paterson bill was “one more delaying tactic from the people that brought you the $122m waste of money postal survey”.
She said the fact conservatives had found one same-sex marriage supporter as “the frontman” for the bill did nothing to hide where it came from.
“Are we really saying in Australia today that you can refuse to serve someone because they’re gay?” Plibersek said.
“You cannot say I’m not going to bake you a cake because I don’t agree with a black person and a white person getting married, or I’m not going to bake you a cake because you’re too old to get married ... or you’re divorced, and my faith says divorced people can’t get married.”
The Paterson bill sets the stage for a party-room showdown with Liberal moderates, who believe discrimination laws should not be watered down to allow differential treatment of same-sex weddings.The Paterson bill sets the stage for a party-room showdown with Liberal moderates, who believe discrimination laws should not be watered down to allow differential treatment of same-sex weddings.
The national director of Liberals and Nationals for Yes, Andrew Bragg, has said a marriage bill should be guided by three principles: “Firstly, existing discrimination in the Marriage Act should be eliminated; secondly, a strong protection for religious freedom should be provided; and thirdly, we should not reintroduce commercial discrimination in Australia.” Birmingham told Sky News he remained of the view Smith’s bill was the “appropriate starting point” and suggested Paterson and others should introduce changes by way of amendment.
“It would be self-defeating to repeal discrimination and replace it with discrimination,” he said. “As we move … to remove one form of discrimination we want to make sure we don’t put in place other forms of discrimination instead,” he said.
On Sunday the Liberal MP Trent Zimmerman warned that religious freedom was a separate issue to same-sex marriage. Birmingham said if there was a yes vote, Coalition MPs and senators would have a free vote in parliament and a private member’s bill, by definition, does not need the approval of the Coalition party room.
“If Australians vote for marriage equality and then … the parliament for any reason delays or seeks to obfuscate or seeks to thwart the wishes of the Australian people, then I think the view of our parliament, the view of this process will be significantly diminished,” he told Sky News. Paterson said the bill was “not a reason to delay legislating same-sex marriage”. In the event of a yes vote parliament should legislate “before Christmas, with additional sitting weeks if necessary”, he said.
“What we’ve seen during this debate is the conflation of a whole range of issues which frankly have nothing to do with the Marriage Act. A Just Equal spokesman, Rodney Croome, said if there were a yes vote “it will be a vote for full equality, and not further discrimination”.
“They can be debated … but they shouldn’t be confused with this bill which is designed to deliver marriage equality.” “A yes vote will mean Australia has conclusively rejected the no campaign’s myth that marriage equality is a threat to freedom, and that special safeguards are required to guard against this threat,” he said.