It’s remarkable to hear Yes vote representatives and various other credible commenters suggesting that the debate should be constrained tightly to the question of whether “all Australians should be treated equally before the law” [translation: Marriage should be broadened to include same sex couples] and that all consideration of implications [such as Freedom of Religion, Free Speech, Education consequences] of such a decision are red herrings.
How is the import of a matter to be judged without consideration of its (potential) implications, particularly in a process where:
- there is no proposal for dealing with these matters;
- overseas experience makes plain that serious flow-on issues will arise.
If it is the intention that overseas experience won’t be repeated in Australia, then the relevant safeguards ought already to be known. If they are not yet known, then perhaps this survey is premature.
We have been told by various politicians that nothing will change in, say, the education arena. But that’s not been the case overseas. Here’s a recent piece of experience from the UK impacting a private faith-based school:
Why wouldn’t we expect that similar developments will occur in Australia as the societal endorsement of same sex sexual relationships is raised to match that of the marriage of man+woman?