A REGIONAL same-sex marriage campaigner has warned the Federal Government’s proposed voluntary postal plebiscite is fuelling “negativity” against same sex couples in the region.
Activist Di Ind yesterday vowed to organise another protest in Mount Gambier in response to what she claims is a non-binding community opinion poll on legalising same-sex marriage.
Her comments come amid Member for Barker Tony Pasin facing criticism over controversial comments he made in national media regarding the
issue.
Mr Pasin yesterday stood by his comments that taxi drivers should have the right to refuse to take part formally in a same-sex couple wedding on the basis of “religious freedoms”.
The Liberal MP said he was responding to a hypothetical scenario put to him by a national broadcaster.
Despite believing in the “traditional definition of marriage”, Mr Pasin said he would vote on the will of the people as determined by the national ballot.
Mr Pasin also revealed he would not campaign on the issue during the postal ballot process, which will see papers sent out early next month.
But Ms Ind yesterday urged the government to abandon the “community poll” and expressed concern regarding Mr Pasin’s public comments.
“The fact he would publicly voice comments like that is very disheartening and ill-informed,” Ms Ind said.
Regarding the voluntary ballot, Ms Ind said politicians should be given a conscience vote in parliament.
“A non-binding, non-compulsory vote will not give us a true reflection of how the population sits, it is merely an opinion poll – let’s save the $122m and put that towards something more beneficial,” the marriage equality activist said.
Ms Ind claimed the publicity surrounding the vote was also fuelling negativity in the region against people form the lesbian, gay, bi, transsexual and intersex community (LGBTI).
“I am very concerned about the impact it is having on the LGBTI community,” Ms Ind said.
“I worry the negativity is just feeding a frenzy and people just lose all sense of normality.
“I am a pretty strong woman, but it is getting to me – I worry about people who aren’t as strong and are not as confident in their lifestyles.”
But she said there were support mechanisms available, including moves to establish a community support group.
“I really do hope the High Court challenge on the illegality of the vote is uphold,” Ms Ind said.
“Mr Pasin should look at what his electorate wants, not his personal view.”
But Ms Ind called on the community to vote for change if the plebiscite went ahead to force change.
In a statement released yesterday, Mr Pasin stood by his party’s position.
“As I have previously made very clear, I personally believe in the traditional definition of marriage – that it is between a man and a woman,” Mr Pasin said.
“I will, however, vote in parliament based on the will of the people as determined by the national postal ballot.
“That is, if the majority of Australians vote to change the definition of marriage to allow same-sex marriage, I will honour this in a parliamentary vote.”
Mr Pasin has also vowed not to campaign on the matter.
Regarding his comments on Sky News, Mr Pasin said he made his position on the postal ballot clear before being asked a series of questions regarding religious freedoms.
“After indicating that I supported the broadest possible religious freedoms, I was presented with a hypothetical circumstance in which a taxi driver was asked to transport a same sex couple to a wedding,” the Liberal backbencher said.
This question was asked in the context of a debate surrounding formal participation in same sex weddings.
“I answered it in that context namely that in my view taxi drivers, chauffeurs, celebrants and other service providers must be allowed the right to decline to take part in a same sex wedding if it is against their religious beliefs,” Mr Pasin said.
“Just as I believe the law should not force a priest to marry a same sex couple, an atheist to take an oath on the Bible or a Muslim to eat in public during Ramadan.
“We have seen circumstances overseas where situations similar to this scenario have resulted in prosecution and penalty.
“I do not want to see this eventuate in Australia.
“My answer was not intended to call on the parliament to allow service providers to refuse service to members of the LGBTI community outside of the context of formal participation in a same sex wedding.”
If the definition of marriage was changed, he said religious freedoms needed to be protected.
“Many people have migrated to Australia to escape religious persecution and in so doing enjoy Australia’s religious freedoms,” he said.
“I am a passionate advocate for protecting these freedoms.”
