前澳大利亚总理霍华德在各大报纸刊登广告, 敦促澳大利亚人对同性婚姻公民投票表决“不” - Former Prime Minister John Howard featured in Major newspapers ads, urging Australians to vote “No”

这次邮政公投如果Yes一方胜出,那么人民的判决会得到尊重,议会将修改婚姻法,这是同性婚姻辩论中双方共识。如果No一方胜出,得到的承诺将大打折扣。Bill Shorten已经说了,工党将不会接受这样的结果。绿党也不会。

因此,政府在邮政公投结束之前,必须阐述一旦同性婚姻合法将采取何种步骤保护家长权利,言论自由和信仰自由显得尤为重要。有了英国美国加拿大这些更改了婚姻法的国家前车之鉴,我们不得不对这些保护特别重视。

It is common ground in the same sex marriage debate that if the postal survey produces a Yes majority, then the people’s verdict should be respected and Parliament support an amendment to the Marriage Act. There is less generosity of spirit if the outcome is a No vote. Bill Shorten has said that his party will not accept such a result. Nor will the Greens.

This contest highlights just how important it is for the Government to spell out, before the postal survey is completed, what steps it will take to protect parental rights, freedom of speech, and religious freedom in the event of same sex marriage becoming law. The case for these protections is compelling given the experience of other countries such as the UK, US, and Canada in the wake of those countries changing their marriage laws.

原文 Source: https://www.whyvoteno.org.au/former-pm-john-howard-stars-no-vote-newspaper-ads/

john-howard-studio.jpg

这个问题必须在公投结束之前解决,而不是留到Yes胜出的时候才来讨论,这相当于说这个问题微不足道。如果公投结果是Yes, 将会有尽快走完法律程序让同性婚姻合法化的强大压力。认真考虑这些保护的可能性将会相当的小。更可能的是,一旦有人提出这些事,将会面对强大打压,被指控为企图搅混人民的裁决。

迄今为止政府已经说明信仰权力将会得到保护,至于如何得到保护,却仅仅说明会通过一个普通议员议案。目前能看到的是在那个方案里仅有的保护不过是允许牧师,神父,拉比,阿訇可以不主持同性婚姻婚礼。

This issue must be addressed before the survey is completed; leaving it as something to be taken up only in the event of a Yes vote prevailing is the equivalent of saying that it does not matter very much. If a Yes vote is recorded there will be overwhelming pressure to “move on”, legislate as quickly as possible, and then put that issue behind Parliament. There will be scant opportunity for serious consideration of protections in the areas I have cited. Very likely, those raising such matters will be met with achorus of put-downs, and accused of attempting to frustrate the verdict of the people.

Thus far, the government has said that religious rights will be protected, but not how – merely stating that it will facilitate the private members’ bill. On the evidence to date, it would seem that the only protection in that bill will not go much beyond stipulations that no minister, priest, rabbi or imam will be compelled to perform a same sex marriage ceremony.

这场辩论不会因同性婚姻立法而停止。一直以来关于安全学校的激辩已经表明,教育激进者已经准备好把性别教育教案引进教室,而主流家长对此并不买账。这些激进者将会利用婚姻重新定义来继续推进他们的目标。家长们有权利知道我们采取什么步骤来保证避免这种情况的发生。

Same sex marriage will not be the end of this debate. As the safe schools debacle showed, there are education activists ready to introduce classroom material regarding gender issues unacceptable to the mainstream of Australian parents. These activists will use a change in the definition of marriage to renew their push. Parents are entitled to know what steps would be taken to ensure that this does not occur.  

尽管有昆士兰技术大学电脑室争议,和对已故漫画家Bill Leak的无耻迫害这些强有力的证据, 更加上政治评论家Andrew Bolt提出各样理据支持应该对种族歧视法18C进行改革,但这条法律现在还是毫无变动。这是一个不好的征兆:一旦我们修订婚姻法,我们现有的议会没有能力建立我们更改婚姻法后所需要的有效保护。

Despite the powerful evidence for reform presented by the Andrew Bolt case; the QUT computer room dispute and the disgraceful hounding of the late Bill Leak, the obnoxious 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act remains unscathed. This does not bode well for the capacity of the current national Parliament to enact any effective protections of the kind that will be required if our marriage laws change.

同性婚姻支持者YES阵营声称,这些问题是无关紧要的,是转移话题。恰恰相反,这是非常合理的担心。声称这个重要的社会基础结构的改变没有任何后果才是谎言。因为议会应该代表人民的意愿,而人民有权利知道在邮政公投结束之前政府准备做哪些来保护公民权益。否则人民只能在没有完全了解情况下投票。

Those campaigning for a Yes vote call any reference to these issues “red herrings” or distractions. On the contrary, they are legitimate concerns. It is completely disingenuous to assert that a change of this magnitude to a fundamental social institution does not have consequences. It is precisely because Parliament should reflect the will of the people that the people are entitled to know what, if anything, the Government will do on protections before the survey is completed. Otherwise people will not have been fully informed when they cast their votes.

john-howard-ad.jpg

 

前澳大利亚总理霍华德 John Howard 授权。

Authorised by John Howard, Sydney