Parliament is set to spend even more time on same-sex marriage this week.
Same-sex marriage bills to be introduced this week by Labor and the cross bench fail to protect ordinary Australians from the consequences of the proposed change, Australian Christian Lobby Managing Director Lyle Shelton said.
While religious celebrants would not be compelled to violate their conscience and perform same gender weddings, non-religious Australians also had freedom of conscience rights which would not be protected, Mr Shelton said.
“People who supply services to the wedding industry should not be fined for exercising their sincerely held beliefs about marriage,” Mr Shelton said.
Parents were already concerned about same-sex marriage’s fellow traveller, the so-called “Safe Schools” program.
“One of the biggest consequences to flow from removing gender from marriage is teaching children at school their gender is fluid.
“This is already happening through the so called Safe Schools program which Labor and the Greens support.”
Mr Shelton said apart from promising same-sex marriage within 100 days, Mr Shorten went to the election promising to fund “Safe Schools” to teach children their gender is fluid.
“Same-sex marriage and Safe Schools both march under the political banner of the rainbow flag and are a package deal,” Mr Shelton said.
“Australia’s biggest supporter of same gender marriage is Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews and he is making Safe Schools compulsory in Victorian high schools from 2018.”
LGBTIQ activists from Safe Schools inducted a class of nine-year olds in western Melbourne into contested gender theory last Friday.
Mr Andrews has said that people, including parents, who have questions about ‘Safe Schools’ are “bigots”.
Mr Shelton said the biggest injustice of same-sex marriage was the requirement for children conceived through ethically dubious assisted reproductive technologies to miss out on a mother or father.
Same-sex marriage activists are already pushing for a relaxation of rules governing anonymous sperm donation and for a lifting of the ban on commercial surrogacy.
“There are no protections in the bills for children to be allowed to know their biological mother or father,” Mr Shelton said.
“There are no protections from State-based anti-discrimination laws for people who will dissent from a state-imposed redefinition of marriage.
“Legal action will be taken against people who publicly express dissent to same gender marriage in the future.”
Mr Shelton said the consequences of changing the definition of marriage needed to be respectfully debated in a plebiscite campaign before the people voted.
“This is the biggest social change in a generation.”
Mr Shelton expected the latest same-sex marriage bills to fail in the Parliament because the Government was committed to a peoples’ vote through a plebiscite.
“It is hard to think of an issue that has taken up more parliamentary time than same-sex marriage. It is high time this issue went to the people.”