Traditional beliefs ignored in marriage equality debate
 |
| Same Sex Marriage (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
In recent years there has been a remarkable shift in sentiment across the Western world about same-sex marriage. It may well be that in the next Federal Parliament, if not in this, there will be a majority of MPs who support change.
The change in thinking is particularly apparent in the Labor Party. Less than four years ago, party policy was to oppose same-sex marriage. A little more than 10 years ago it voted with the Coalition to include in the Marriage Act a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Now, by 2019, MPs who hold that view will no longer be able to have a conscience vote on the matter. The implicit message, regrettably, is that people of devout faith who hold traditional views about marriage are no longer welcome in the party – a position that will be electorally dangerous for Labor in the long term. These are the "true believers" that Labor is leaving behind in embracing this change.
It ought to be unlawful for people to suffer discrimination because they express traditional views.
In contrast, the Coalition is maintaining its traditional view of marriage, but it is under pressure from Labor and the Greens to allow a free vote.
The argument in favour of a free vote is that this would respect freedom of conscience for MPs; but none of the bills on same-sex marriage so far have sought to protect freedom of conscience for the ordinary person in the street who still holds traditional views on marriage.
Ministers of religion would not be required to solemnise marriages in violation of their beliefs; that is a given. But it is not only ministers of religion who have consciences. Other people are involved in the celebration of marriages who may be deeply troubled by such a change in the law. These may include registry office staff and authorised celebrants, and people who have built businesses in the wedding industry. Will they be forced by anti-discrimination laws to go against their beliefs?
There are other questions. If the law changes, will religious schools be permitted to advance church teaching on marriage? Will religiously based marriage-counselling organisations be denied funding because of their beliefs? The bills so far introduced into Parliament have no protections for organisations that hold to traditional values.
Experience overseas is not encouraging. In Britain, America and elsewhere, people have been drummed out of jobs or dragged before anti-discrimination tribunals for resisting the tide on same-sex marriage. Many have been members of ethnic and cultural minorities. People have suffered discrimination even for expressing private views about the nature of marriage.
For this reason, those who advocate for a change to the law need to consider how to respect the rights of those who hold traditional views, including our ethnic minorities and many Indigenous Australians. Authorised celebrants and staff of registry offices ought to have a right of conscientious objection. State governments will need to find ways to accommodate the deeply held beliefs of some staff while ensuring that no member of the public is denied a service. There needs to be some kind of protection for people in small businesses who have invested much in building up businesses, such as wedding reception centres, and who have deeply held objections to same-sex marriage.
There needs to be protection for freedom of speech. It ought to be unlawful for people to suffer discrimination because they express traditional views.
The mood in this country is rapidly turning ugly, with opposition to change on the basis of deeply held beliefs being categorised as "bigotry". As a society, we need to learn afresh how to disagree well on moral and social issues. We must avoid the divisive and damaging outcomes experienced overseas.
Labor, being the major party advocating change, needs to advance policies for how to protect its left-behind believers, and indeed those of other political persuasions or none, who might otherwise suffer hardship or discrimination on account of their beliefs if the law changes.
On these issues, every nation must find its own pathway. We are now one of the most multicultural nations in the world. The great majority of our recent migrants come from countries that hold to traditional views about family life. Both major parties ought to have a strong interest in protecting the rights of people who have traditional beliefs about marriage. For Labor, these are voters in its heartland that it needs to win back. For the Coalition, these are the people who must not be sold down the river.
Religious freedom is in Australia's DNA. The South Australian wine industry was established by devout Lutherans who had to leave northern Germany because of religious persecution. Some died on the long sea voyage. Pastor Kavel, one of their leaders, wrote about Australia in 1839: "We have found what we have been seeking for many years – religious liberty – and with all our heart we are desirous of being faithful subjects and useful citizens." We owe it to the nation to ensure that their descendants – faithful, decent and useful citizens – continue to enjoy freedom of religion and conscience, without fear of persecution for their beliefs about marriage.
Patrick Parkinson AM is a professor of law at the University of Sydney and a founder of Freedom for Faith.
