The Tasmanian anti-free speech case

My good friend Chris Berg sets out the arguments in an op-ed in The Age:

To be offended by the booklet is to be offended by what was, until very recently, the mainstream view on gay marriage, and one still shared by a large minority of the population.

For this reason if nothing else, the complaint ought to have been dismissed as laughably frivolous. But this month the commission decided that the Catholic Church has a case to answer under Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Act.

But the Tasmanian case is worse than that.

To make the argument for heterosexual marriage is to make an argument for the law of the land as it currently stands. To make the argument for the law of land as introduced in 2004 and reaffirmed by a vote in the national parliament as recently as 2012. The issue is now so controversial that the Federal Parliament has decided to abrogate all responsibility for marriage and to allow a plebiscite on the matter. Yet a State government – that has absolutely no constitutional authority in the matter – has decided the issue already. At least the unelected bureaucrats of that State government have decided the matter already.

The message is clear – anyone who wants to argue against same-sex marriage and for the current law of the land in a federal plebiscite will be prosecuted under State government laws. Sounds crazy? It is crazy. Why has the federal government not challenged the Tasmanian legislation in the High Court? It seems to me that this is a very straight forward challenge to the federal Parliament’s ability to make laws under the constitution.

The situation is complicated by the fact that I think the Federal Parliament should legislate to allow same-sex marriage, and if it came to a plebiscite that I suspect an overwhelming majority of Australians would vote “yes”. That shouldn’t change the general principle that Australians have the right to support the current laws of the land without being harassed by government – any government, or its minions. Indeed Australians have a duty to uphold the current laws of the land – as does the executive government.

Update: Tim Wilson makes much the same point:

The views of the booklet also reflect Australia’s marriage­ law.

This entry was posted in Australian Story, Freedom of speech, Hypocrisy of progressives. Bookmark the permalink.

74 Responses to The Tasmanian anti-free speech case

  1. rickw

    To be offended by the booklet is to be offended by what was, until very recently, the mainstream view on gay marriage

    I think it is still the mainstream view, the view hasn’t changed, just people’s willingness to express it.

  2. Tiny Dancer

    Well they elected Lambie as well. Bogan heaven. Nice scenery though.

  3. Stimpson J. Cat

    A nation of hairy footed hobbits.
    What do you expect?
    The devil literally lives among them.

  4. Leigh Lowe

    I hope this case runs and runs and is appealed.
    It will highlight exactly how the Gaystapo will treat anyone who gets in the way of their crusade.
    And, in doing so, it will kill off the “yes” vote in the plebiscite.

  5. Stackja

    I am offended by Tas HRC.

  6. Notafan

    This got a mention at Mass this evening as a first major assault on freedom of conscience in Australia, which it also is.

  7. A Lurker

    Global warming was never about the climate or environmentalism.
    It was always about destroying Western economies, and money, control and power.
    Support for muslim immigration/refugees was never about helping the needy.
    It was all about destroying Western culture, and control and power.
    Same sex marriage was never about giving homosexuals the right to marry.
    It was always about attacking the Christian Church, and control and power.
    Everything the Socialist Left promotes can be boiled down to those few objectives.

  8. C.L.

    That shouldn’t change the general principle that Australians have the right to support the current laws of the land without being harassed by government – any government, or its minions.

    I think your definition of “general principle” is a tad chilling.
    As a general principle, we have the right to support or oppose current laws.
    You – perhaps inadvertently – create the impression that prosecutions will be justifiable if the plebiscite is passed. If it is passed, many of us will be eager to destroy any resultant laws attacking marriage.

  9. Rayvic

    The same-sex marriage lobby is disingenuous. It deliberately does not acknowledge the fact that the Federal Government made 84 amendments to Commonwealth Legislation in 2009. Consequently, the Govt removed all differences applying between opposite sex marriages and same-sex couples in established relationships. If Australians were reminded of this, it would surprise if many would support legalisation of same-sex marriage.

    Any suggestion that same-sex couples are in any way treated differently to opposite sex couples inside or outside of marriage, other than the right to marry, is unjustified.

  10. Jo Smyth

    If this case proceeds and is successful it sets a precedent and we may as well accept life as we know it has gone forever.

  11. rich

    Everything the Socialist Left promotes can be boiled down to those few objectives.

    Yes. Victim poker trumps reason and is a moral high ground for every attack on the successful establishment. That’s how critical theory works.

    And if you call it out, they hide behind political correctness.

  12. MikeD

    ‘The situation is complicated by the fact that I think the Federal Parliament should legislate to allow same-sex marriage, and if it came to a plebiscite that I suspect an overwhelming majority of Australians would vote “yes”. ‘

    Would they vote yes? Do people really care enough to get out and vote in a plebiscite?
    To quote the most relevant test that politicians seem to quote recently, ‘would this pass the pub test?’

    Maybe it would get up in a wine bar in the inner west of some suburb where Greens have a footprint and hipster bikes are sold and ridden by their beared barista’s…..but anywhere else?

  13. Baldrick

    Now the beagle is starting to feel a little edgy.

  14. None

    one still shared by a large minority of the population.

    Typical IPA (all sodomy fethishists). Trying to weasel in a wedge to ensure that if you don’t like gay marriage you’re a troglodyte.

    I guarantee you that the overwhelming majority of the Australians and the entire world do not think shoving your dick up someone’s shithole is marriage. They are just not allowed to express it. And all the limp wristed sodomy feitshist lefty libertarians includin the IPA are as much contributers to that as the stock standard green leftards themselves.

  15. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    Watched the last episode of ‘Pride and Prejudice’ on Foxtel tonight, where two happy couples marry and the Anglican marriage service is intoned. First purpose: the procreation of children. Not the ‘adoption’ of children, but their procreation. By consummation of the marriage. Providing a child with a natural mother and father; a birthright.

    If we cannot defend this then we cannot defend much else in our culture.

    Muzzling people on something so valuable and significant is always wrong.

  16. None

    Would they vote yes? Do people really care enough to get out and vote in a plebiscite?

    That’s why Turnbull does not want the vote to be during a general election. He’s counting on apathy to go the polls. It’s how the Irish bulldozed gay marriage in with 37%. And nota bene: Abbott never promised a plebescite. He promised it would be considered in the next term of government. Abbott was smart enough to know there is no grass roots movement for gay marriage and that the whole matter was raised again as a cynical ploy by Shorten and Plibersek to distract from TURC. Abbott knew those morons could count on the the chattering class because sodomy is the fetish of the chattering class – most a bunch of aging hippies and their offspring – who get misty eyed becayse they lost the Vietnam war and made promiscuity and STDs and one parent families de rigeur. The chattering class and porn addicts.

  17. None

    The same-sex marriage lobby is disingenuous. It deliberately does not acknowledge the fact that the Federal Government made 84 amendments to Commonwealth Legislation in 2009. Consequently, the Govt removed all differences applying between opposite sex marriages and same-sex couples in established relationships. If Australians were reminded of this, it would surprise if many would support legalisation of same-sex marriage.

    Any suggestion that same-sex couples are in any way treated differently to opposite sex couples inside or outside of marriage, other than the right to marry, is unjustified.

    Correct. Except I think it was 49 or 59 only. Howard started the amendment process and Rudd-Gillard finished the last amendments. There is not a single law not one that discriminates against these infantile GLBT. And remember, it was Rodney Croome who waved that list of laws and promised all will be sweet if those got changed.

    Naturally Rodney Croome is behind Mr Man with his dick cut off. Tasmania is always the test case as it was with the relationship register (there the Gaystapo worked on the A-G for years, then the chief sodomist went back to his day job at the ANU). The intent is for a domino effect. And because Tassie is so small and there are all of 2 gays or whatever there they can cry, see, the sky didn’t fall in. It only falls in when you wake up and find your children aren’t yours unless the government says they are, that you can’t stop schools teaching anal sex to your kids and that if a man sodomises your daughter it’s not sex abuse, it’s marriage.

  18. Amused

    and if it came to a plebiscite that I suspect an overwhelming majority of Australians would vote “yes”.

    If that’s the case, why are the supporters so scared of having a plebiscite to determine the matter?

    If the support really was 70%+ like they claim, they’d be happy for a plebiscite to occur tomorrow.

  19. J.H.

    The Heterophobes and gaystapo activists are abusing their power, corrupting state powers, trampling free speech and Sinc thinks that the Australian people will vote homosexual marriage in?…… The Australian people may sometimes be dumb, but they are not that dumb.

    These politically dangerous, intolerant people have already proven that they will abuse any power, corrupt any system, destroy any person to get their homosexual agenda made law.

    We can all see them for what they are, they may stop us saying so publicly, persecute us with their intolerant laws, label criticism “Hate speech”, but when we go into that booth and cast our secret ballot…. They can’t fukin’ touch us.

    Unless the political elites force it on us.The Australian people won’t be voting in Homosexual Marriage anytime soon…. Otherwise we’d be having a Plebiscite like yesterday.

  20. J.H.

    The Catholic church can take on the role of the oppressed with this persecution of the Bishops…. They can use it to show up the fascism and intolerance of the Homosexual activists and their anti Christian stablemates.

    Even with an unfriendly and anti Christian media, enough obvious propaganda will show through to the Australian audience. They are adept now at picking political narratives conjured up by the media. The people will be able to substitute their tacit distaste of homosexual behaviours and manifest it as disgust of the Political behaviours and activism on display….. and give theatrical voice to their own frustrations on the entire matter of Homosexual marriage.

    The political powerful always overstep themselves…… always.

  21. None

    The Catholic church can take on the role of the oppressed with this persecution of the Bishops…. They can use it to show up the fascism and intolerance of the Homosexual activists and their anti Christian stablemates.

    Alas, the law is such that they can’t fight on religous freedom grounds. They have to fight in line with the stupid law which means they are guilty unless they can prove themselves innocent.
    And the current lot of Catholic Bishops (have the sees all been filled? there were heaps of vacant sees a year or so ago) are nancy boys. You need a college of Pells.
    Sadly too the Bishop isn’t going to get much support from Catholics, most of whom just tick a box so they can send their kid to a Catholic school and otherwise have the morals of a sewer rat. The Catholics cannot rely on support from Anglicans. All bar a few of them joined the Uniting Church to become outposts of the green left sodomite socialists. The proddies are too small and fragmented and half of them joined the sodomites. The Orthodox don’t make a habit of making pronouncements about anything. It will really be only be a small number of committed Catholics who will fight this and who will do all of Australia a service if they win. Every person who seriously cares about free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom full stop should be supporting and advocating for the Catholics in this case.
    Sadly, the system – and the HR tribunals – are stacked against them. It’s wall to wall sodomy fetishism in the public service. To the point of obsession. And that goes for the IPA and our government-funded sodomite Tim Wilson.

  22. None

    Unless the political elites force it on us.The Australian people won’t be voting in Homosexual Marriage anytime soon…. Otherwise we’d be having a Plebiscite like yesterday.

    No they won’t be. Which is why Turnbull wants a plebscite and one that is not concurrent with a general election. That way all the oldies will stay home or in their nursing homes and not lodge postal votes. Others will be too busy with work and running around picking up kids. Only the undergraduates and the aging hippies wanting to feel morally superior, history makers, rights campaigners (forget that the Stonewall activists would turn in their graves to know these fuckwits want some public servant to approve their bedroom activities) will rock up. The vote will be abotu 30%. The chattering class will declare it a resounding victory. Despite a plebescite not being binding (but we know the sodomite fetishists in the media will extract that promise form Turdball) the parliament will vote it in. Two years later the public wakes up to their kids asking them for help completing their homework: preparing for anal sex, enema or no?

  23. Zyconoclast

    Global warming was never about the climate or environmentalism.
    It was always about destroying Western economies, and money, control and power.
    Support for muslim immigration/refugees was never about helping the needy.
    It was all about destroying Western culture, and control and power.
    Same sex marriage was never about giving homosexuals the right to marry.
    It was always about attacking the Christian Church, and control and power.
    Everything the Socialist Left promotes can be boiled down to those few objectives.

    Thank you Lurker. Worth repeating long, loud and often.

  24. Lem

    The government should get out of people’s bedrooms. It’s weird.

  25. Frank Zeleniuk

    Did government create this mess? Of course they did, by giving married couples privileges. Privileges to married couples such as alimony, inheritances and lower income taxes. These are the serious issues.

    I don’t think gays care about marriage generally, except for what punishment they can wreak upon the institution and concept of marriage and the organizations from which it originates – basically religions. These organizations have been the source of their social ostracization and guilt throughout history. They’ll eventually abandon marriage for the most part, since they aren’t particularly monogamous, and once they realize that it can threaten their economic well-being and when they no longer have to be right about socially asserting themselves. At which point they will probably willingly abandon any State privilege and willingly and happily return to the free-wheeling but dark netherworld of the closets from whence they emerged and settle for equal individual rights under the law – which they should not be denied.
    Then they will not be met with hatred, pity perhaps for they too will have to respect the limiting recognition of individual rights.

  26. James In Footscray

    ‘Why has the federal government not challenged the Tasmanian legislation in the High Court?’

    Because gay marriage is a hot-button, fashionable issue, and would be a bad look for a bien pensant federal government.

  27. None

    The government should get out of people’s bedrooms. It’s weird.

    In terms of marriage, the government has only ever supported an existing social institution – marriage preceded the state by thousands of years. Gay marriage represents government redefining a social institution AND SHOVING IT DOWN PEOPLE’S THROATS. In other words gay marriage hands control to the government. EXACTLY WHAT YOU DON’T WANT. To implement gay marriage one has to remove any semblance of husband wife (most of that already done) and any semblance of a filial bond with your children. Ergo the government even gets to decide if you are your child’s parent and can ignore the fact that you are its natural progenitor. Because you see gay and lesbian couples can’t be natural progenitors. So they have to remove your natural parental rights so you can all pretend that a man sticking his dick up someone’s shithole is marriage.

  28. James In Footscray

    @Tiny Dancer – but the shops close at 6pm on a Friday. This tips the scales.

  29. Notafan

    What alimony inheritances and lower income taxes.
    First I’ve heard of these matrimonial privileges.
    Alimony by the way would be for previously married couples, its not a benefit of marriage. I don’t think one in a thousand Australia divorces get orders for spousal support.

  30. None

    Did government create this mess? Of course they did, by giving married couples privileges. Privileges to married couples such as alimony, inheritances and lower income taxes. These are the serious issues.

    There are no privileges for married couples (= defacto = glbt couples). Under Gillard’s mistress laws (her attempt to finish of the Same Sex lego) you can be a dependant wife for 50 years but your husband’s mistress of 2 years can take even your share of assets.

    All you social liberals of whatever political party are the morons who have created this mess.

  31. Barry

    There is only ONE issue here. Why has a Liberal state government allowed this odious law to remain on the books, and preserved the authoritarian state apparatus that enforces it?

    And the same applies in each case where there have been ‘conservative’ governments in Western Australia, the Northern Territory, Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and federally. None of them has had the courage and integrity to undo these leftist instruments of oppression.

    Note that the Tasmanian government is keeping quiet, hiding away, hoping that no-one will notice them. Conservative commentators should NOT let them get away with it. They should be forced out of hiding and humiliated. The ONLY reason this has happened is that a Liberal government has allowed this leftist instrument of hatred to remain on the books.

    On the one hand you have the Left deliberately vandalising our society and on the other hand you have gutless conservative governments cowering in the corner, too afraid to do what is right. This socialist dump of a country is done for.

  32. Ellen of Tasmania

    It will really be only be a small number of committed Catholics

    No, None, you will find some Proddy support – a ‘small number of committed Christians’. Take heart. There may still be seven thousand (or more) who have not bowed the knee to Baal.

    The courts, the government and whoever else can call the tail a leg, but a dog will still only have four legs. They can’t change facts, poor dears, as much as they like to try.

    Sinc wants freedom, but he doesn’t understand yet that it’s the truth that sets us free.

  33. HRT

    We will not see the end of self mutilation until every festering “social justice” commission, tribunal or council is abolished. They are magnets to activists, freaks, nutters and those with chips on their shoulders.

    Their complete madness is apparent in their approach to discrimination. Every time you make a choice between two or more items you are discriminating. And, you do so to give yourself the best result. Entirely rational behaviour except, it can be illegal.

    The most recent example was provided by Albanese yesterday on Bolt when he said in regard to Syrian refugees: “We do no not discriminate”. In other words, murdering anti western shits are as welcome as their opposites.

    Likewise, I have toyed with the idea of writing to one of these clown magnets to complain that “whitegoods” is racist and offensive and that the sale of white cars has similar overtones. I haven’t done so as I’m concerned the boofheads/boofheadettes will take me seriously.

    Think I’ve got it wrong? Think Triggs.

  34. Combine Dave

    The Church should have the right to express its opinion of SSM etc without being dragged through the courts.

    Doesn’t alter the fact that the government should get out of the bedroom and the marriage business.

    Also, is it the norm for religious organizations to distribute propaganda via state schools :- separation of church and state anyone?

  35. Fred Lenin

    I like the word “Gaystapo” ,describes them perfectly, just like the islamofascists ,without the blood , repeal all laws created on u.n. ” dictats. Hrc,equal ops, racist laws ,we dont need the unelected u.n. ocrats .

  36. Robbo

    Why is anyone surprised and/or shocked over this? We are talking about Tasmania which has yet to arrive in the 20th century let alone the 21st. Every nut case, ratbag and bogan either lives in Tasmania or aspires to do so. The Federal Government should offer the bloody place, lock stock and barrel, to New Zealand where the Tasmanians would be regarded as normal.

  37. johninoxley

    It seems to me the whole poojammer- fingerin debate is to make them seem normal. We keep hearing about how, ‘I was born like this’. Spent a few bob on the homo gene research, turn it off, problem solved. How long before children are going to show up in court demanding compensation from you and i because we let them lose thier true parentage? Not long.

  38. Jack Lacton

    and if it came to a plebiscite that I suspect an overwhelming majority of Australians would vote “yes”.

    Anyone who thinks this doesn’t understand where ordinary Australians are on the issue. I suspect it would lose 60-40 and I think conservative politicians know this, which is why they don’t want to legislate on it.

  39. Rabz

    There is only ONE issue here. Why has a Liberal state government allowed this odious law to remain on the books, and preserved the authoritarian state apparatus that enforces it?

    Well said. Remind me again why Taxmania needs a frigging human rights commission in the first place?

    Oh, that’s right – it doesn’t need one.

  40. Notafan

    Get your facts straight combine Dave. The pamphlet was only distributed in Catholic schools.

    Not to mention your misunderstanding of the separation of church and state.
    In Australia the constitution is to protect us from a state imposition of a religion and that a holder of public officer must be on a particular religion.

    It does exclude the practice of religion from the public space.

    Marriage’-equality’has nothing to do with what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms but everything to do with the state trying to impose it’s will on the people.
    Gays can call their relationships marriages just don’t expect everyone else too.

  41. Sydney Boy

    The situation is complicated by the fact that I think the Federal Parliament should legislate to allow same-sex marriage, and if it came to a plebiscite that I suspect an overwhelming majority of Australians would vote “yes”.

    I expect it will pass in favour of gay marriage. But only just. Nowhere near the numbers predicted by the Gaystapo. I suspect it will pass, as noted by several Cats, due to the apathy of those opposed to gay marriage. And then it will be too late to complain. I for one will vote against, but living in a democracy, I will grudgingly and unhappily accept it if it passes. I will not undertake violent protests and vexacious court actions to get it overturned. And that, dear Cats, is the difference between the conservatives and the rabid left.

  42. Ellen of Tasmania

    Not to mention your misunderstanding of the separation of church and state

    Yes, I do wish we could make a better effort to properly understand what this ‘separation of church and state’ really means. So many use it in the leftist approved fashion, pretending the state can be ‘neutral’. Secular Humanism is not neutral. There is no neutrality.

    You cannot separate religion/worldview/belief system and state. It is impossible.

    A society, a culture, a people group who have any laws, customs or conventions at all have those things based on some kind of belief system. It is unavoidable.

  43. JohnA

    Lem #1864593, posted on November 23, 2015 at 6:58 am

    The government should get out of people’s bedrooms. It’s weird.

    Lem and Combine Dave, if that is so (and the Progressives version 1.0 of a few years back were arguing this) , then why have the Progressives version 2 (aka Gaystapo and their cheer squad) decided that Federal government legislation is necessary to enforce their definition of bedroom mazurka upon the entire population?

    johninoxley:

    “Spent a few bob on the homo gene research, turn it off, problem solved.”

    Nope – homo-gene is a furphy, both logically and genetically impossible.
    If such a gene did exist it would be wiped out in the second “generation” because it could not be transmitted by gay sex.
    If such a gene had such power as the gay lobbyists used to claim (they have gone quiet on this for quite a while), that is to “force” people to engage in homosexual behaviour, a couple of consequences follow:
    a) genetic determinism denies them any personal responsibility (“my genes make me do this”); but that cuts both ways, because if they hold to such determinism then they can’t accuse heteros of homophobia because the hetero gene (or if you wish, the absence of a gay gene) “makes them do it” too
    b) the alternative is that the so-called gay gene is not so deterministic and allows for hetero behaviour in order to pass itself along to the next generation, but if that is so then
    (i) the person is making a decision about their sexual behaviour, which means that “gay-ness” is a personal choice and should not be protected by anti-discrimination laws and marriage laws
    and/or
    (ii) the “gay gene” is self-contradictory and therefore a logical fallacy.

    This whole proposition is utterly farcical of course because it pre-supposes that a gene (that is, some chemicals on the DNA chain) operates a level of intelligence and contradictory logical processes normally reserved for Progressives.

  44. Roger

    It does exclude the practice of religion from the public space.

    Nota, should be: It does *not* exclude the practice of religion from the public sphere (typo, not mistake, I’m supposing).

    In fact, sect 116 of the Constitution actually guarantees the free exercise of religion in the public sphere.

  45. JohnA

    Combine Dave #1864623, posted on November 23, 2015 at 8:00 am

    The Church should have the right to express its opinion of SSM etc without being dragged through the courts.

    Also, is it the norm for religious organizations to distribute propaganda via state schools :- separation of church and state anyone?

    1. What Ellen of Tas said.

    2. The leftists corrupted this expression, which was originally (in the USA) to prevent the government from interfering with the church or operating the church as a government instrumentality a la Henry VIII and an established church system. That’s why the Pilgrim Puritans left England. And we have in Clause 116 an equivalent protection.

    3. As I understand it, the Catholic Church distributed the document within its own churches and schools as a summary of its long-standing teaching for the benefit of its own people. Then it went further and was offered to the community as a contribution to the debate on a matter of live public discussion. But initially, this vexatious Greens litigant was arguing about a document that was not addressed to him/her/it and they should not have had any standing to bring a case at all – except, as has been noted, this is in Tasmania.

  46. The government should get out of people’s bedrooms. It’s weird.

    This is a canard. The government isn’t in anyone’s bedrooms. Why do libertarians in relation to this issue always trot out this same canard even when the idiocy of it is pointed out to them?

  47. BTW, we can now add Combine_Dave and Lem as supporters of incestuous and polyamorous marriage. Get the government out of the bedroom! Let mothers lie with their sons! Love wins!

  48. .

    This is a canard self evident truth. The government isn’t in anyone’s bedrooms wallets. Why do(es) libertarians anyone with a clue about economics in relation to this issue always trot out this same canard roll their eyes and wonder why they have to defend liberty as an ideal even when the idiocy truth of it is pointed out to them to all and sundry?

    Mmmyes, I have no idea either.

  49. Boambee John

    Sadly too the Bishop isn’t going to get much support from Catholics, most of whom just tick a box so they can send their kid to a Catholic school and otherwise have the morals of a sewer rat. The Catholics cannot rely on support from Anglicans. All bar a few of them joined the Uniting Church to become outposts of the green left sodomite socialists. The proddies are too small and fragmented and half of them joined the sodomites. The Orthodox don’t make a habit of making pronouncements about anything. It will really be only be a small number of committed Catholics who will fight this and who will do all of Australia a service if they win. Every person who seriously cares about free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom full stop should be supporting and advocating for the Catholics in this case.

    However, the evangelicals are a bit more forward, as are, eg, the Presbyterians, who propose to turn in their govermnent licences to marry if the law is passed – and instead offer a Christian commitment service, leaving the actual legal “marriage” to the Registry Office and marriage celebrants.

  50. Boambee John

    No they won’t be. Which is why Turnbull wants a plebscite and one that is not concurrent with a general election.

    And will probably be held on a working day.

  51. Leigh Lowe

    To make the argument for heterosexual marriage is to make an argument for the law of the land as it currently stands. To make the argument for the law of land as introduced in 2004 and reaffirmed by a vote in the national parliament as recently as 2012.

    I am not a fan of this line of thinking.
    Conversely, if the law for SSM is ultimately passed, you could argue that rights to oppose it are somehow diminished.
    Whether something is on the statute or not should neither add weight to, or detract from, the rights to argue against it.

  52. Leigh Lowe

    And will probably be held on a working day.

    …. with the only polling booths in St Kilda, Brunswick, Kings Cross and Darlinghurst.

  53. Boambee John

    Combine Dave
    #1864623, posted on November 23, 2015 at 8:00 am

    Also, is it the norm for religious organizations to distribute propaganda via state schools :- separation of church and state anyone?

    Actually, Dave, apparently the “offending” material was distributed ONLY in Catholic schools!

  54. Otherwise we’d be having a Plebiscite like yesterday.

    No to a Plebiscite on Unnatural Marriage.
    Yes to a Referendum on Unnatural Marriage.

  55. .

    Who cares about what people think about gays?

    The issue is, this is an assault on free speech.

    It must be defeated.

  56. No need for change

    How can you have a large minority? A minority by definition is small and there is no way of knowing what every individual thinks re this issue till the findings of a plebescite and even that might not be accurate if it is worded ambiguously .
    I am with Winston on this one but I would word the referendum thus
    Do you want marriage to be reserved as between a man and a woman . People who wish to register affirmations of same sex connection already have access to legal recognition.

  57. Andrew

    Will Hodgman’s feeble comments on this matter are appalling in my view. Have a read:

    I am conscious there is a matter before the Office of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner involving Archbishop Porteous and the Catholic Bishops Conference.

    I am mindful of that and needless to say would not wish to comment on that matter nor compromise its progress.

    What has emerged is considerable public concern about the right to free speech. There is serious concern this could become a landmark case, with significant implications for those who want to participate in debate as we head to the national plebiscite. I am sure all MPs are receiving significant representations on this issue.

    It is important to ensure there is an appropriate balance and that free speech is preserved. As a government and community, we would want to ensure the balance is right. We need to consider the adequacy and appropriateness of laws and protections because I believe they will be tested in this debate.

    http://www.themercury.com.au/news/opinion/talking-point-i-support-a-warmer-fairer-society/story-fnj4f64i-1227617190466?from=public_rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

    Hodgman doesn’t want to comment on the case because as he said in his pro-SSM speech, he is more interested in defending those whose feelings are hurt by not being allowed to marry than those whose basic freedoms are being violated.

  58. Mmmyes, I have no idea either.

    It seems I hit a nerve.

  59. .

    ???

    No you didn’t.

    All that matters is that free speech is maintained.

  60. Ellen of Tasmania

    However, the evangelicals are a bit more forward, as are, eg, the Presbyterians, who propose to turn in their government licences to marry if the law is passed – and instead offer a Christian commitment service, leaving the actual legal “marriage” to the Registry Office and marriage celebrants

    It’s a good start, BJ, but I think I’d like to see them take a step further than that. Surely it would be possible to write up a legal agreement that is consistent with a Christian understanding of marriage and then have the ceremony and signing of the agreement and a marriage registry with the church.

    It would be even better if already married Christians could obtain ‘civil divorces’ and sign on up to the same ‘real marriage’ deal.

  61. defending those whose feelings are hurt by not being allowed to marry

    Let’s be clear, no one is preventing them from marrying; it’s just that the configuration in consideration cannot constitute a marriage.

  62. notafan

    Thankyou Roger should have proofread.

  63. It’s a good start, BJ,…

    I don’t think so. We need to defend the general understanding of marriage. What is being undertaken in Tasmania is an attempt to buttress the on-going attempt to redefine marriage by here using the apparatus of power (namely the state HRC). And this matter is not simply about free speech, it is about prevent redefinitions of reality to suit passing fashions. Given the ‘arguments’ they’ve deployed, such as preventing hurt feelings, discrimination, etc. what is to stop similar claims made by transgender individuals who want their chosen gender to be reflected in government documents, or provide access to respective public amenities?The problem isn’t simply or largely freedom of speech, but the illusoriness of the demand.

  64. A Lurker

    Who cares about what people think about gays?
    The issue is, this is an assault on free speech.
    It must be defeated.

    Yes, thing is Tassie is like a Petri dish for what is likely to happen on the mainland.
    If it is not defeated, then the legalisation of SSM will invariably lead to loss of freedoms for everyone else.

  65. Scott

    So much for our implied right to free political communication (as in Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth).
    If we can’t openly discuss our laws we have no democracy.

  66. Rob MW

    “The situation is complicated by the fact that I think the Federal Parliament should legislate to allow same-sex marriage, and if it came to a plebiscite that I suspect an overwhelming majority of Australians would vote “yes”.”

    Hmmmm……….the irony being that they don’t pass enough fucked-up laws ?

    “……..I suspect an overwhelming majority ……..” – if it’s tails you’d be right and if it’s heads……….well who knows ?

  67. Ellen of Tasmania

    I don’t think so.

    I understand, Dover, but I thought BJ’s comment was about plans being made if we were to lose the fight. Then I think it would be good to be able to opt out of their fantasy game.

    But certainly we should fight the fight while we can. But what is the best way to fight? How many polite letters can we keep sending to our overlords? You saw what Will Hodgman said – he is a jelly fish.

  68. Ellen of Tasmania

    Do they not want a plebiscite because they are worried they might lose, or because they think it is the job of our overlords to tell us what we can think?

  69. It can only be a temporary defeat, Ellen, nature is merciless even while God forgives.

  70. Leigh Lowe

    Do they not want a plebiscite because they are worried they might lose, or because they think it is the job of our overlords to tell us what we can think?

    Precisely.
    They know they will lose.
    The polls showing 70% support are a total fudge.
    Why do you think their barrackers in the MSM are so desperate for it to go to a Parliamentary vote?
    So they can badger 5 – 10 waverers by threatening them with career oblivion by running a Gaystapo campaign in their seat.
    You know they are really grasping at straws when they complain about the cost of a plebiscite … these dicks happily wave through billions to support their pet causes, but baulk a couple of million on a plebiscite.
    Hmmm.
    As for those who believe the plebiscite is a dead cert, I have some advice.
    Next time you encounter the two loudmouths at a dinner party quacking on about SSM, declaring “it’s time”, ignore them and ask yourself why four or five others are staring at the ceiling saying nothing.

  71. Angus Black

    It is beyond me why Australians believe that Tasmania has daft laws because we are all uneducated boguns. We do have daft laws, but they are mainly a consequence of the Greens (and their fellow travellers in the Labor Party) who, by and large are the comprised of the tree-changers and the inner city (Sandy Bay and Battery Point, etc) trendoids.

    These two groups are predominantly not Tasmanians, but mainlanders. The rot started with the evil Bob Brown (and his anti-Gordon below Franklin activists) and things have just gone downhill from there. You have probably wiped from your consciousness that it was the Federal government which, overriding the State government of the time, stopped the development of the Gordon below Franklin dam which would have generated construction jobs, and cheap power, in turn, giving Tassie a competitive advantage.

    Can anything save us now?

  72. Ellen of Tasmania

    It can only be a temporary defeat, Ellen, nature is merciless even while God forgives

    Good on you, Dover, you’re a tonic for the soul. I often remind myself that ‘despair is not an option’.

    My husband’s version is ‘He who sits in the heavens shall laugh’ (Ps. 2). Some days we all need a bit of encouragement.

  73. Boambee John

    Ellen of Tasmania
    #1864995, posted on November 23, 2015 at 1:14 pm
    I don’t think so.

    I understand, Dover, but I thought BJ’s comment was about plans being made if we were to lose the fight. Then I think it would be good to be able to opt out of their fantasy game.

    Ellen, I believe that is the general idea.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *