Changing laws about homosexuals - will not change convictions that it is sinful
Some groups have sought to have conscience provisions removed.
If marriage between two people of the same sex was made lawful, the proposed amendments to the Marriage Act 1961 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 set out in the Draft Bill do not go far enough to ensure the protection of freedom of religion in Australia.
The proposed amendments are limited to protections for ministers, civil celebrants and religious organisations in relation to the provision of services for a same-sex wedding ceremony.
There is, however, no protection for a religious organisation or individual believer to hold and promote a view about marriage in accordance with their beliefs.
If the legal definition of marriage is changed to include same-sex couples, there will remain a very significant proportion of the Australian population who continue to believe that marriage is only between a man and woman. This view of marriage has been repeatedly and overwhelmingly affirmed by many churches, many denominations and many faiths.
Without explicit protection for those who continue to hold and promote that marriage is between a man and a woman, it is likely that anti-discrimination legislation will be used to silence this point of view in the public sphere.
Such problems are already occurring, as shown in Tasmania by a complaint against the Catholic Archbishop of Hobart, Julian Porteous, because of a booklet he authorised for distribution in Catholic institutions in Tasmania entitled Don’t Mess with Marriage, which taught that marriage was between a man and a woman.
Freedom of religion is more than a freedom to worship in private, behind closed doors. It entails a right to manifest those beliefs in the public sphere, to teach those beliefs to one’s children, to promote those beliefs in the public arena, and for religious organisations such as schools and hospitals to be shaped by those beliefs, without those beliefs being curtailed by the threat of the withdrawal of public funding. These freedoms are not protected by the proposed exemptions.
Such problems are already occurring, as shown in Tasmania by a complaint against the Catholic Archbishop of Hobart, Julian Porteous, because of a booklet he authorised for distribution in Catholic institutions in Tasmania entitled Don’t Mess with Marriage, which taught that marriage was between a man and a woman.
Freedom of religion is more than a freedom to worship in private, behind closed doors. It entails a right to manifest those beliefs in the public sphere, to teach those beliefs to one’s children, to promote those beliefs in the public arena, and for religious organisations such as schools and hospitals to be shaped by those beliefs, without those beliefs being curtailed by the threat of the withdrawal of public funding. These freedoms are not protected by the proposed exemptions.
The submission went on to detail areas such as the wedding industry and the public service where people would not be protected for conscientious belief. Likewise, there would be consequences for freedom of association, sex education in schools, professional accreditation and the welfare system.
The amendments proposed in the Exposure Draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill are manifestly insufficient, because they only address issues of participation in same-sex weddings (and even then, inadequately) and they do not address in any way the more fundamental issues that arise from changing the legal definition of marriage to allow same-sex marriage.
There are deep and often irresolvable differences over questions of politics, religion, gender and sexuality in the marriage debate. Advocates of both sides of this issue come with confidence in their own convictions, and changing (or not changing) the law won't change these convictions.
Similar comments were made by the cross-denominational group Freedom for Faith, which also argued the exposure draft does not sufficiently address religious freedom.
Its submission said the bill too narrowly focuses on the wedding ceremony and does not consider 'a broader right of anyone to hold religious beliefs'.
Freedom for Faith argues the Bill should recognise religious freedom 'as a positive right rather than as a concessionary exemption'.
Similar comments were made by the cross-denominational group Freedom for Faith, which also argued the exposure draft does not sufficiently address religious freedom.
Its submission said the bill too narrowly focuses on the wedding ceremony and does not consider 'a broader right of anyone to hold religious beliefs'.
Freedom for Faith argues the Bill should recognise religious freedom 'as a positive right rather than as a concessionary exemption'.
