The "NO" Case in the Australian SSM Debate


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?


Sweden legalised gay marriage in 2009 but the legislation did not compel clergy of individual faiths to perform same-sex marriages. The Swedish prime minister is now proposing to compel the priests of the “Swedish Church” [a Lutheran church] to perform SSM, arguing they should no more be allowed to refuse than a midwife can refuse to do abortions. [I presume midwifes are obligated to perform abortions in Sweden.]

This Church is the dominant Church in Sweden and would be described as “very progressive”. It seems the Swedish ruling party will require it to become moreso.


Yes, I know; it’s just a survey.


Fed the masses lies for long enough and they will start to believe them.


SSM is a stick Satan fashioned out of the sophistry of equality to beat the Church with. Just watch, as time goes by, that stick will get bigger and will be swung with increasing force. By the gates of hell will not prevail.


Its not hard to understand the limited usefulness of Christians trying to politically force morality on a nation that either isnt mature enough for it or is acting contrary out of spite for other historical grievances against the Church. Look at “Christian” Ireland.

The SSM vote is going to be meaningless in the longer term whatever the result if large sectors of the country grow increasingly disaffected by a Church that pushes morality by means largely other than personal concern, example and much zipping of mouths.

I have lived many years in Oz. SSM is coming and will be there to stay, the tide turned years ago re the religious debate.
The only thing slowing its coming is probably Aussi ockerism.


While I disagree with many of the premises in that statement, I tend to agree with the earlier view u put to the effect that secular law is not a high quality means to usher in the kingdom. Nevertheless, it remains the case that we live in a democracy and will be asked to tick boxes/make choices.

I presume that to be the case but see no reason to welcome it, but rather to prepare for it.


The negative effects in the United States show a dictatorship in the making. In New York City, you are forced to use the preferred pronouns regardless of biology, appearance or other identification, or face legal action. People don’t like to be forced.


So I understand. The law is set out here for those interested:

While of course this is not something directly attributable to SSM, it arises from the general trend to alternative views about sexuality and gender and demonstrates how consequences multiply.

The same law takes a dislike to gender aware uniforms too:

“Under the NYCHRL, the fact that the grooming standard or dress code differentiates based on gender is sufficient for it to be considered discriminatory, even if perceived by some as harmless. Holding individuals to different grooming or uniform standards based on gender serves no legitimate non-discriminatory purpose and reinforces a culture of sex stereotypes and accepted cultural norms based on gender expression and identity.”


When SSM was legalized by fiat through the US Supreme Court (having failed previously in the popular vote), the LG in LGBT was satisfied. That left the T and ‘gender non-conforming persons’ as the new cause. The B portion is only getting up to speed as of this year. For those who are skeptical, just go to any established LGBT news site.


It’s going to grow lots more legs next week, and get a lot of air time this Sunday.


We need to start an anti politically correct campaign here, in that case. Smash political correctness down the dunny


The following website (from a Christian Schools group) links to a number of interesting references on the topic.

The legal implications discussion in the paper by Foster is particularly noteworthy for setting out what has actually happened around the world. I was particularly intrigued by the Court judgement:

" ‘To distinguish between an aspect of a person’s identity, and conduct which accepts that aspect of identity, or encourages people to see that part of identity as normal, or part of the natural and healthy range of human identities, is to deny the right to enjoyment and acceptance of identity.’

In essence, the court was saying that to criticise homosexual sexual activity is to attack those people who identify as homosexual. In particular the following quote at [61] from the UK Supreme Court decision in Bull & Bull v Hall & Preddy [2014] 1 WLR 3741 was supported, where Lady Hale said:

Sexual orientation is a core component of a person’s identity which requires fulfilment through relationships with others of the same orientation.’ "

Will it be permissible to suggest in any context (eg. religious school) something contrary? How can it be permissible to discriminate against conduct, when to do so is held to be discrimination on the basis of identity? Does the court deny that a person who holds they are homosexual might also hold the view that same sex sexual relationships are wrong?

And finally, this is the Catholic Bishop’s Pastoral Letter:


Driving in rural Australia today passing vote yes signs in bright colours it made me realise that we who vote ‘no’ are seen in a negative light…we have been given a negative word to deal with.
Imagine if we who believe in the real meaning of the word were given positive wording in our question to be voted on…we could have been given the word ‘yes’ to vote on the real meaning of marriage.A happy positive word.
The power of a word.Makes me wonder.
Do you believe the definition to the word marriage should remain unchanged…yes.
Do you believe marriage should remain as it is,between man and woman…yes.


Side note from a swede, The Church of Sweden allows and fully recognizes same sex marriage and the Church itself is controlled by the state; though not holding absolute power the same way Francis does over Rome the government does hold powerful clout over it.

Pope Francis would be angry if a Catholic Priest tried to perform a Same Sex Wedding correct? Why do you suppose the chief leaders of the Swedish Church would be any less aggravated that someone is defying their direct decrees that gay marriages should not be denied? After all, this is why the Catholic church feels compelled to sack “active” homosexuals isn’t it, because they’re not following the doctrine of the institution.

If they don’t like it, they can go to hell. That’s fine for Catholics isn’t it? Why not for them?

I would have thought this would be exactly what Catholics want, denial of service and employment based upon religious convictions.

I do confess I have found it hilarious that the same groups who cry for the supremacy of religious rights get upset when another religion uses them to beat them into the corner.


By chief leaders, do you mean politicians?

My observation was that it seems the rules are being changed. The priests were not required to conduct SSM (historically, a never imagined arrangement, resting on an immoral premise), and now they are being told they must.

If you equate the political leaders with the church leaders, and thus say “the Church is changing its position and thus it’s priests must tow the line” - then I understand your point, but would observe that “religious freedom” in Swedish is a somewhat moot issue. The Church (of Sweden) is merely a subset of and beholden to the State.


Both. The Church of Sweden has had gay married homosexual Bishops and Archbishops. Gay marriage isn’t a novelty in Scandanavia; Same Sex Marriages have been known since 1989. The “Western West” may still be in a fit about it, but for us it is very, very much an old and now settled issue.

I think nearly thirty years is more than adequate time to find new employment if the new regime is so unacceptable. Even the most liberal and worker-favoring legislation in Europe such as found in the UK only allows two years “free transfer” on a contract.

I should also add this modern compulsion to sack people for homosexuality within the Catholic church is also a relatively new phenomenon in response to increasing LGBT rights. The sex scandals enough should be self evident that sexual sins were not adequate cause for a defrocking, but now they are. Discrimination against homosexuals (which this is to the Church of Sweden) is a comparable “sin” so to speak.

The Church of Sweden is merely exercising autocratic power as the Catholic Church does within its own institutions. Homophobia is to the Church of Sweden a sin that cannot be tolerated, not unlike Ursury was to the Catholic church once upon a time. Doctrine develops, isn’t that a useful thing?

I don’t see your complaint. Discrimination against homosexuals is as far as the Church of Sweden goes doctrinal is a sin, why is it wrong for a bishop to cast out and rebuke sinners until they repent? Catholics have only recently begun doing that to non-celibate clergy, the Church of Sweden is likewise following suit with its equivalent grave sinners.


The ‘Church’ of Sweden isn’t really a church.
Everything is ‘discrimination’ apparently. I’m not allowed to take part in the Eucharist at a Catholic Mass. Maybe I should scream ‘discrimination’ if I’m invited?

What counts as ‘discrimination’?
Going against the teachings on marriage and sexual conduct is open rebellion against God. Jesus is quite explicit about the consequences of the that.

The political leaders don’t even believe in God. Troubling isn’t it?


As far as Sweden is concerned it is the state religion and holds a special place of honor above all other religions there. Not rather unlike how Catholicism likes to exercise supremacy in Ireland and Italy, despite not being the state religion of either.

Atheism is actually an acceptable theological opinion within the Church of Sweden, in fact the previous head was in her own words “Agnostic leaning towards Atheism”.

It would take far too long to explain in one post and likely too scandalous, but to the Church of Sweden Christianity and Theism do not necessarily correlate, they historically have but are not required; cultural Catholicism and “Christian Philosophy” are perfectly valid. Not a majority opinion among the most active devotees, but one that is not seen as problematic. Think of it as…Practice of the religion is more important than an assent of faith, the inverse of Catholicism where following all the rules will still send you to hell if you don’t accept Jesus as divine; so long as you follow the rules (i.e: you live a identifiable Christian life, which again probably does not correlate to the Catholic expectation) and are initiated you can be in the club.

I’ve never been a member of the Church of Sweden, having been raised as a Catholic. In fact the Catholic idea of having to believe in something was seen as…Well, odd. Nobody was ever rude enough to say it but it’s something utterly alien and doesn’t compute within the Scandanavian mindset. Even during the Catholic era post 1000AD, Catholicism was an urban religion confined mostly to the cities and upper classes and hasn’t ever really enjoyed a powerbase among the masses there.


Let me clarify. It’s not a Church of God. A church of the State? Then yes.

Then it’s not a church of God. Not part of the Body of Christ.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit