James Patterson’s proposed abolition of honeymoons for same sex couples

James Patterson’s proposed abolition of honeymoons for same sex couples

Sometimes I wake up and wonder what rubbish I have to read that some Parliamentary draftsman has prepared which has then been passed by Parliament and is yet more red tape called legislation or regulation.

This morning I woke up to read one of the worst Bills ever- the proposed Bill by Senator James Patterson- which purports to allow religious conscience for those who object to same sex marriage. You may think I am just a cranky old curmudgeon, who gets his kicks from complaining- but bear with me:

  • this Bill has been rightfully condemned by the Law Council of Australia as allowing people to object on the basis of a thought. If you think I’m exaggerating on this- the Bill says: “preventing the rights of freedom of thought, conscience, religion, expression and association in relation to the holding, expressing or acting on, certain beliefs.”
  • the Bill is so bad that if a service provider believes that a heterosexual couple (who are overweight) should not get married because they will lead to obese children- the service provider can refuse service. In essence the bill has holes in it that a Mack truck could be driven through. The belief need have nothing to do with religion whatsoever.
  • the Bill will override the valued protections under the Sex Discrimination Act – designed to protect LGBTI Australians, amongst others- and a slew of State and Territory anti-discrimination laws. In a triumph of doublespeak, reminiscent of the pigs in Orwell’s Animal Farm, the Bill gives its justification based on human rights- while removing the human rights of those the subject of thoughts or conscience, allegedly based on religion but possibly based on bigotry.
  • the Bill will allow those who currently have to provide goods and services without fear or favour (because of anti-discrimination legislation including the Sex Discrimination Act) to discriminate- even for a thought- to refuse to provide those goods and services. Imagine about to drive to the ceremony in a hire car- and finding that because the fellow behind the desk does not approve  of gays marrying that you can’t get to your own wedding. May be you’re lucky and all works well- you get hitched, you have the reception and then you go to retire for the night on your honeymoon- to discover that the clerk behind the desk does not approve of lesbians getting married- and says- without fear of consequences- that there has been a mix up, that the accommodation is not available- you’ll have to go somewhere else.
  • You’ve got past that part and get the phone call from your celebrant: “Guess what? This has never happened before. The Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages has refused to allow your marriage to be registered.” Yes, you’ve got it absolutely right. The Bill is that bad that it would allow a bigot like Kim Davis refuse to register weddings of same sex couples.

What an absolute disgrace.

Request an Appointment
Fill in the form below to find out if you have a claim.
Request an Appointment - Stephen Page
Things to Read, Watch & Listen

Surrogacy Ethics Conference Australia: Key Insights from the Law Council’s First Donor & Surrogacy Ethics Event

Donor & Surrogacy Ethics Conference Recently, I took part in the family law section of the Law Council of Australia’s first surrogacy and donor ethics conference, held in Melbourne. I want to give a shout out to my Melbourne colleague, Sarah Jefford OAM who had the gumption in putting it all together and then roped… Read More »Surrogacy Ethics Conference Australia: Key Insights from the Law Council’s First Donor & Surrogacy Ethics Event

The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) Review of Surrogacy Laws

The Australian Law Reform Commission has released a substantial discussion paper as part of a broad review of surrogacy laws. The paper examines how surrogacy could and should be regulated within Australia, including both domestic arrangements and situations where intended parents commission surrogacy overseas. Submissions on the discussion paper close on 19 December 2024, and… Read More »The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) Review of Surrogacy Laws

Mexico Surrogacy Laws 2025: Supreme Court Ruling Strengthens Surrogate Rights

Mexican Supreme Court Judgment The Supreme Court of Mexico in July delivered judgment, Amparo in Revision 63 of 2024, that, in effect, regulates the process of surrogacy in Mexico. This decision is an enormous step forward in protecting the human rights of Mexican surrogates. When obtaining parentage via surrogacy in Mexico, there are two methods:… Read More »Mexico Surrogacy Laws 2025: Supreme Court Ruling Strengthens Surrogate Rights

Family Law Section Law Council of Australia Award
Member of Queensland law society
Family law Practitioners Association
International Academy of Family Lawyers - IAFL
Mediator Standards Board