LGBT activist drops complaint against Australian bishops over marriage booklet
A Tasmanian LGBT activist and Green
Party candidate has withdrawn his discrimination complaint against the
Australian Catholic Church over a booklet on marriage he claimed had caused
“pain and harm” to people.
At issue was the pastoral
letter, Messing with Marriage, issued in booklet form and
reportedly distributed to Catholic school children. It explained Catholic
opposition to same-sex “marriage” and defended heterosexual marriage as “holy,”
God-given and linked inextricably with procreation and child-rearing. It is
still being distributed in anticipation of a promised plebiscite on the issue
later in the year.
The Tasmanian anti-discrimination
commission, which had the option of pursuing the matter even when the
complainant withdraws, has announced it is dropping the matter too.
The Institute of Public Affairs’ Simon
Breheny hailed the decision as a “victory for freedom of speech and freedom of
religion. The laws that allowed for this complaint to be made should be
repealed.”
But the Archbishop of Hobart Julian
Porteous expressed disappointment that the process ended before the Catholic
Church’s freedom of religion and speech could be vindicated. His statement read
in part,
“This decision by the Commissioner raises a number of issues which remained unanswered, in particular the ability of the Church to freely express its view on marriage.”
The complainant, Martine Delaney, a
male-to-female transgender person, said, “I don’t want to take away anybody’s
freedom of speech.” But during two conciliation sessions he did propose changes
to the booklet, mostly to reframe its many expressions of Catholic doctrine on
marriage and sexuality as belief rather than fact.
Where the booklet states, “Every man,
woman and child has great dignity and worth which can never be taken away. This
includes those who experience same-sex attraction,” Delaney proposed preceeding
that statement with the words “We hold.”
He also wanted an amendment where the
booklet states, “If the civil law ceases to define marriage as traditionally
understood, it will be a serious injustice and undermine that common good for
which the civil law exists.” Delaney proposed to insert the words “the Church
believes.”
Delaney also objected to the
statement, “‘Messing with marriage’, therefore, is also ‘messing with kids,’”
because, he said, “messing with kids” in Australian culture means sexually
abusing them. He proposed changing “messing with kids” to the less
inflammatory, “placing the wellbeing of children at risk.”
But in the conciliation process, the
Catholic bishops rejected his proposals and did not budge. This left Delaney,
in his view, only two alternatives, taking the matter to adjudication with the
state anti-discrimination tribunal, or withdrawing. “There was no purpose in
continuing, he said because the Australian Bishops Conference clearly wasn’t
interested in doing anything other than making nice noises.”
Transgender person wants to change church doctrine?
Delaney also did not want to be bound
by the silence the conciliation process imposes on the participants. Nor was
the prospect of taking the matter before the anti-discrimination tribunal in
Tasmania appealing. “Already the case is being used by the other side [the
Church] to complain, ‘We are being persecuted. We can’t speak out.’ But Delaney
did not want to give opponents of same-sex “marriage” more ammunition in terms
of free speech as the plebiscite approaches.
Now Delaney, was raised in “a big
Catholic family,” is happy that the public can learn that “the Catholic Church
has some antiquated and interestingly strong views on human relationships.”
The booklet aims to present a clear
statement of Catholic doctrine on marriage and sexuality, rooted in natural
law. “Marriage,” it states, “is an institution designed to support people of
the opposite sex to be faithful to each other and to the children of their
union. It is not discrimination to reserve it to them.”
It also criticizes homosexual
activists’ claim to champion equality. “This appeal to equality and
non-discrimination gets things the wrong way around,” it states. “We must treat
like cases alike and different cases differently.” Thus those with same-sex
attraction are urged to pursue chaste lives.
Lyle Shelton of the Australian
Christian Lobby told Australian news agencies that the complaint should never
have accepted by the Tasmanian anti-discrimination commission. The LGBT community knew that taking this court would polarize people who do not want LGBT marriages.
“This was an example of where State-based
human rights commissions are often being weaponised by activists against those
with different views,” he said, adding that religious organizations and
advocates of traditional marriage should not have to worry about “being dragged
in front of a tribunal. These laws have no place in Australia.”
