同性婚姻威胁我们的核心自由 Same Sex Marriage Threatens our Core Freedoms

支持同性婚姻合法化的人们经常会问我们为何反对别人结婚的权利。“这关你什么事呢?”他们问。他们认为这并不会影响到我们,所以我们并不需介意。

People who support changing marriage law to include homosexual couples often ask us why we oppose other people's right to get married. “How is it your business?” they ask. They claim it won’t affect us, so why should we care?

首先,大家应该意识到,在澳大利亚联邦及多个州的现有法律之下,同性伴侣已在各层面上享有跟合法婚姻伴侣完全一致的权利——无论是财产、经济或地产权,所有相互交托的、亲密的伴侣关系都已经受到了澳大利亚法律的保护。

Firstly, it is important to realise that under numerous state and federal laws, a couple who is in a same-sex relationship for all intents and purposes has the same rights as those who are in a legally recognised marriage. Whether it is property, financial or estate rights, all couples in a committed, intimate relationship are protected by Australian law.

SSM_wedding_cake.jpg

 

LGBT(同性恋、双性恋及转性者)游说团体称同性婚姻为“婚姻平等”——因为这个名称暗示:当我们反对同性婚姻的时候,我们就在歧视同性恋者。 所以,修改婚姻法真的给所有人带来“平等”吗?

The term which the LGBT lobby use for same-sex marriage is "marriage equality" – because this term implies that we are discriminating against same-sex people when we oppose same-sex marriage. So, does changing the marriage law bring “equality” to all people?

答案是否定的。正如我们从其他国家的状况所看到的一样,重新定义婚姻剥夺了一个社会中许多其他人的权利。比如,就在上个星期,一所在英国的犹太东正教学校正面临关闭,只因为该校拒绝对小学学生教授关于同性恋的课题.

The answer is no. As we have seen from overseas experiences, redefining marriage takes away the rights of many other people in a society. For example, just last week in England an Orthodox Jewish school is facing closure because it refuses to teach primary school students about homosexuality.

Jewish_school.jpg

伦敦犹太教学校因不教育小学生关于同性恋和变性手术的课程面临关闭。

 

几天以前,瑞典总理Stefan Lofven公开发言说他希望所有瑞典教堂的神父都应该被迫主持同性婚礼,尽管教会认为神职人员应当有权拒绝.

A few days ago, Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven said he wants all Church of Sweden priests to be forced to perform same-sex marriages, despite the Lutheran church’s position that clergy should have the right to refuse.

Jack Philips,美国马萨诸塞州的一位面包师被告上法庭,原因是他出于自己的宗教信仰、而拒绝为一个同性婚礼做有两位新郎装饰、内部有彩虹颜色的婚礼蛋糕。这一案件突出体现了同性婚姻法对宗教自由和言论自由造成的严重威胁.

Jack Phillips, a baker in Massachusetts, has been in court because, due to his personal religious beliefs, he refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding with two grooms on top and rainbow filling inside. This case highlights the significant threats to religious liberty and free speech posed by same-sex marriage law.

在澳大利亚,企业界里的强权同运激进者们霸凌公司雇员、强迫他们支持同性婚姻。一位就职于一间大银行的职工报告说,他被同性婚姻的宣传“不断轰炸”。他说:“作为一个基督徒,这样的状况让像我一样的员工不得不在我们的工职和信仰之间权衡……在一个曾以信仰自由为傲的国家里,这是一种让人沮丧的状况。”

And here in Australia, employees are being bullied into supporting same-sex marriage by powerful rainbow activists in the corporate world. An employee of a large bank banks reports that he is “constantly bombarded” with same-sex marriage propaganda. He said: “As a Christian, this puts employees like me in the position of having to justify my faith against my employment... A sad state of affairs in a country where freedom of religion was once a prized right.”

black_ring.jpg

如果你不戴这只戒指,你就是狭隘顽固的人----这算什么事儿!?

从近来的一次联邦议会公众意见审查所收到的意见书来看,同性婚姻的支持者们希望移除对宗教自由的一切保护。Just.equal (“公正.平等”,平权组织) 发言人Rodney Croome声明,他反对保护不愿意为同性婚礼证婚的持证证婚人。“对我们来说这像是对偏见进行合理化的一种方式。”

Submissions to a recent Senate inquiry made it clear that same-sex marriage supporters wish to remove all protections for religious freedom. Just.equalspokesperson Rodney Croome stated he was opposed to protections for civil celebrants who preferred not to perform same-sex weddings: “To us it would sound like a way to legitimise prejudice,” he wrote.

我们不应该对所谓的“婚姻平权”运动抱有任何幻想,它跟“平等”没有任何关系。这个运动意在禁止所有对此持不同意见的人发声、并最终摧毁我们这个国家得来非易的自由。

We should be under no illusion that the "marriage equality" campaign has anything to do with equality. It is a campaign designed to silence anyone with an opinion contrary to their own, and it seeks to destroy our nation’s hard-won freedoms.

因此,用全民公投来决定同性婚姻在澳大利亚是否应该合法,是至关重要的——因为每一个人的观点都有价值。

Therefore, it is crucial that we have a people's vote to determine whether same-sex marriage should be legalised in Australia – because everyone’s opinion matters.