Image by lillen

Australians have overwhelmingly voted in favor of same-sex marriage. According to Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data, 61.6 percent of Australians out of 12.7 million voted in favor of same-sex marriage, while 38.4 percent voted against same-sex marriage. Despite the fact this “vote” is actually a poll and non-binding, many news sites around the world have reported this waste of time and money poll as if it now enshrined in law, and gay, lesbian and bisexual couples can now marry.

No, now is for the hard yards. Just the other day, a draft bill emerged, and now Parliament has moved ahead to change the Marriage Act as soon as possible, as they should, since they’re reflected in the wishes of over sixty percent of Australians. Why this had to involve a $122 million AUD plebiscite was utterly ridiculous. Aren’t the point of our politicians to reflect on behalf of their constituents? Should we have to have incredibly expensive, wasteful “plebiscites” for any law that the Government wishes to pass in the future? I get it. The Liberal National Party is in power. They’re Australia’s Conservatives, and many have a religious objection to same-sex marriage. However, it shouldn’t matter their religious beliefs. They make their choices based on their constituents, not themselves.

We should all be glad same-sex marriage is overwhelmingly supported in Australia, at least among the 79.5 per cent of Australians who responded. There should really be no objection to same-sex marriage. Even if you have religious or moral objections, how does same-sex marriage affect you personally? When this law is finally passed in Parliament, you will not be forced to marry someone of the same sex. Some of the objections to same-sex marriage posed by Lyle Shelton and the Australian Marriage Forum are utterly ridiculous. Children do not need both parents to have a successful, nurturing upbringing: what on earth do you think single-parent families are? It’s insulting to those who are in single-parent families because the second parent was either abusive, or has unfortunately passed on. At least Lyle Shelton had a respectable response to the debate, unlike those who rioted in the streets after the U.S Election didn’t give them the results they wanted.

Except there is one objection that is not so absurd. Just last week, Twitter posted this as one of its Moments:

Draft Australian same-sex marriage bill looks to deny services to gay couples

This headline is exactly what many No and Yes proponents fear. Here’s what it says:

As Australia moves towards a result in its same-sex marriage postal survey, a draft bill has emerged that would allow wedding vendors to legally deny their services to gay couples. The proposed bill would also grant parents the right to pull their children out of class if they believe the content conflicts with their beliefs against same-sex marriage.

In a video (and then a later response video) from September, YouTuber Bearing explained why he believed he would be voting No. At this point, I had already ticked Yes and posted my form, but I wanted to fully understand the motivations behind a No voter. Basically, Australia doesn’t have an enshrined freedom of speech like the United States. That means, when the same-sex marriage law is passed, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and his cronies can add anything to the proposed Bill, including limiting freedom of religion. You know that overused debate from Christians complaining that they refuse to bake cakes for gay couples for their weddings? Many of the more rabid Yes voters think they can destroy freedom of speech and freedom of religion in passing this vote. According to them, a religious figure (pastor, imam, rabbi) should have to marry a gay couple. There was a big brouhaha about this recently. The baker must bake that cake.

Wedding vendors—as long as they have an acceptable reason that isn’t eww gay peopleshould be allowed to deny services to any couple. There’s a reason why we have both religious and civil ceremonies. Civil celebrants don’t really have any reason to reject a gay couple from getting married, but religious ceremonies should be up to that religious affiliation to decide.

The second part of this Twitter Moment was the bit that gave me reason to consider the No movement’s reasoning. Parents should be allowed to pull their children out of specific classes like, say, the radical Gender Studies bullshit that is Safe Schools and Respectful Relationships. I wrote about this in a previous article about the same-sex marriage debate, and it still rings true:

Despite claiming to only want same-sex marriage legalized—which should be overwhelmingly supported—the Yes advocates seem to believe that if same-sex marriage is legalized in Australia, then the country should be allowed to proceed further with dangerous Gender Studies ideology.

Programs like Safe School claim to be about promoting respect and tolerance among straight and LGBT+ Australians, but it is not. Creator Roz Ward is a prominent Marxist (actual Marxist, not “Marxist” that Right-wingers use as a generic insult) with some horribly problematic beliefs. For one, these programs believe we can learn empathy. Uh…either you have empathy, or you don’t. It’s not a matter of learning basic human emotions.

We just want gay, lesbian and bisexual Australians the right to marry, and there is no reason you should be against two consenting adults getting married. While there is a serious concern with Radical Left-wing agendas being pushed in schools, the reason the majority of Australians voted Yes was because we want same-sex couples to be able to marry. We want our friends and family and our children to be able to marry whoever they want, whether male or female. This is the reason I—and the majority of Australians—voted Yes in the end.

We hope Parliament passes the updated Marriage Act into law as soon as possible, because that’s only fair, but we must remember the freedom of speech of all Australians. After all, aren’t we meant to be the land of the fair go for all?