I'm curious as to peoples opinions on this.
Australia is planning on having a Plebiscite (People's vote) regarding changing the legal definition of marriage to allow same-sex marriage. At the same time there is a certain clause in a law known as the Anti-Discrimination Act, namely section 18c which rules:
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, color or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.
Now those in favor of redefining marriage are using this clause to rule any speech against gay marriage to be ruled as hateful and therefore illegal.
So my question is this; Which of these two issues carry the greater weight? The libertarian view on same-sex marriage is well known, as is the importance placed on freedom of speech. So which wins out in this scenario?
Is it right to allow those who oppose gay marriage a voice to prevent them from freely marrying, or is it right to silence opponents in order to defend the freedom of same sex couples?