Turnbull Government fails at full marriage equality

Set out below are certain proposed clauses in the same-sex marriage amendments to the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961, as previously amended by the Howard Coalition Government in 2004.

As can plainly be seen this bill does not seek to establish full marriage equality, in that it allows widespread discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender citizens seeking to legally marry in this country.

Should this bill eventually be submitted to the Australian Parliament, the Turnbull Coalition Government proposes the establishment of a Joint Select Committee to review and report on the Exposure Draft.

Excerpt from the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 201X (Exposure Draft) released by Attorney-General George Brandis on 10 October 2016:

"47 Ministers of religion may refuse to solemnise marriages

Refusing to solemnise a marriage despite this Part

(1) A minister of religion may refuse to solemnise a marriage despite  anything in this Part.

(2) In particular, nothing in this Part prevents a minister of religion from:

(a) making it a condition of solemnising a marriage that:

(i) notice of the intended marriage is given to the minister earlier than this Act requires; or

(ii) additional requirements to those provided by this Act are complied with; and

(b) refusing to solemnise the marriage if the condition is not observed.

Refusing to solemnise a marriage that is not the union of a man and a woman

(3) A minister of religion may refuse to solemnise a marriage despite any law (including this Part) if:

(a) the refusal is because the marriage is not the union of a man and a woman; and

(b) any of the following applies:

(i) the refusal conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of the religion of the minister’s religious body or religious organisation;

(ii) the refusal is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion;

(iii) the minister’s conscientious or religious beliefs do not allow the minister to solemnise the marriage.

Grounds for refusal not limited by this section

(4) This section does not limit the grounds on which a minister of 16 religion may refuse to solemnise a marriage.

6 Before section 48

Insert:

47A Marriage celebrants may refuse to solemnise marriages

(1) A marriage celebrant (not being a minister of religion) may refuse to solemnise a marriage despite any law (including this Part) if:

(a) the refusal is because the marriage is not the union of a man and a woman; and

(b) the marriage celebrant’s conscientious or religious beliefs do not allow the marriage celebrant to solemnise the marriage.

Grounds for refusal not limited by this section

(2) This section does not limit the grounds on which a marriage celebrant (not being a minister of religion) may refuse to solemnise a marriage.

47B Religious bodies and organisations may refuse to make facilities available or provide goods or services

(1) A religious body or a religious organisation may, despite any law (including this Part), refuse to make a facility available, or to provide goods or services, for the purposes of the solemnisation of  a marriage, or for purposes reasonably incidental to the solemnisation of a marriage, if:

(a) the refusal is because the marriage is not the union of a man and a woman; and

(b) the refusal:

(i) conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of the religion of the religious body or religious organisation; or

(ii) is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion.

(2) Subsection (1) applies to facilities made available, and goods and services provided, whether for payment or not.

(3) This section does not limit the grounds on which a religious body or a religious organisation may refuse to make a facility available, or to provide goods or services, for the purposes of the solemnisation of a marriage, or for purposes reasonably incidental to the solemnisation of a marriage."

It is noted that under this bill it appears as though discrimination may be practiced against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender citizens seeking to legally marry, as a matter of conscience alone. Therefore a minister of religion whose own peak religious governing body accepts same-sex marriage may still practice discrimination himself/herself and, a civil marriage celebrant does not have to hold religious beliefs in order to discriminate.

This appears to run counter to international human rights law which does not support discrimination based on a general exemption for conscience. As an example see Article 18 Clause 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ratified by Australia on 13 August 1980.

It should be further noted that neither the amendment bill nor the Marriage Act itself appear to contain a legal definition of the term "religious organisation".

For the purposes of any newly amended marriage act, is a religious organisation a not-for-profit institution for the advancement and promotion of religious purposes, such as churches, convents, faith-based schools or bible colleges, or is it capable of a broader definition?

Will any bigot or homophobe be able to prominently display a religious icon in their place of business and thereby gain a right to deny goods and services to same-sex couples seeking to organise a wedding?

The road to parliamentary approval of the unfair Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill became a little more difficult to traverse yesterday......

ABC News, 11 October 2016:

A meeting at Parliament House this morning saw Labor MPs and senators vote unanimously to block the bill establishing the plebiscite.

"The experts have unequivocally explained to Labor that the plebiscite would cause harm to gay and lesbian people — particularly, but not exclusively, young people," Mr Shorten said.

"Having met these families, having listened to their stories, I could not in good conscience recommend to the Labor Party that we support the plebiscite about marriage equality.

"The Labor Party, therefore, will in Parliament oppose Malcolm Turnbull's expensive, divisive plebiscite."

The Greens and a number of balance-of-power Senate crossbenchers have also pledged to block the enabling legislation, meaning it will not pass Parliament.

The compulsory Australia-wide ballot on whether to allow same-sex couples to marry was set to happen in February next year.

The Opposition criticised the plebiscite for months and its decision today was widely expected.

Labor is expected to keep pressing for a free vote in Parliament on whether to legalise same-sex marriage.

But a number of senior Government ministers have made it clear that will not happen.

Note: The results of the proposed precuser national plebiscite will be non-binding on MPs and senators and a number of government members have stated that they will not vote for same-sex marriage under any circumstances.

So why is the Turnbull Government toadying to the religious right when it comes to marriage equality?

Why is the Turnbull Government toadying to the religious right when it comes to marriage equality?

It is a bit of a puzzle when religion appears to mean so little to couples deciding to marry.

For instance, there were 121,197 marriages registered in Australia in 2014 and only 31,336 (or 25.8%) of the marriage services were conducted by a minister of religion, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

At least 79.4 per cent of all these couples co-habitated before marriage.

In 2014 a total of 299,697 births were recorded of which an est. 34.6% were born outside of a registered marriage.

If one looks at the broader picture – the 2011 Census records that that 67.3% of the population professed to having a religion.

Only 48.7% of the 2011 population over 15 years of age were married, 5.5% were widowed and 45.8% were never married, separated or divorced.

In 2011 a total of 301,617 births were recorded of which an est. 34.18% were born outside of a registered marriage.

Similarly In 2010 a total of 297,903 births were recorded of which an est. 33.63% were born outside of a registered marriage.

Given that the majority of religions practiced in Australia have some form of prohibition on the sexual conduct of unmarried males and females and encourage legally binding marriage, one has to suspect that an individual’s religious beliefs do not necessarily have any impact on how they choose to enter into partnerships for life or what type of partnerships these may be.

Nor does religious belief appear to play a large part in decisions to start a family.

As for the last stage of life, McCrindle Research (2014) states that in Australia; Cost is the biggest influencer when planning a funeral with 2 in 3 (66%) Australians stating it is extremely or significantly influential. Cost is considered more important than both religion or life philosophy (31%) and culture and family traditions (27%) and Over half (58%) of the population would prefer to have a civil celebrant conduct their funeral.

Which indicates that religious beliefs are no longer a primary concern for the majority of individuals when burying life partners and family members.

So, Liberal and National Party senators and members of parliament – why on earth are you creating such a hypocritical fuss over revisiting the federal Marriage Act again and including same-sex, transgender etc. couples in the definition of marriage and why are you considering giving people professing a religion and rabid homophobes the right to discriminate against LGBTIQ couples who may seek to marry in the future?

It was the Australian Parliament which narrowed the Marriage Act in 2004 and it is up to this 45th parliament to correct that mistake.

No Plebiscite, You Cowards in Canberra!

In August 2004 the Australian Parliament changed the federal Marriage Act 1961 to deliberately exclude LGBTIQ couples from legally marrying, so it’s up to the Australian Parliament to rectify its own mistake.

“Two thirds of the Australian people, a majority of the parliament and leaders of all major parties support every Australian being treated fairly and equally through the Marriage Act. It is time for the Parliament to deliver marriage equality. We call on our parliamentary supporters to start working together on a pathway that delivers marriage equality in this parliament without delay.” [Australian Marriage Equality (AME) Chair, Alex Greenwich in media release, 14 September 2016]

Click on image to enlarge

The unashamed public vitriol begins....

While misguided attempts to entrench discrimination in legislation continue in the federal parliament:

Senator Leyonhjelm says he has been actively lobbying Senator Brandis to consider and adopt aspects of the Liberal Democrats bill on the matter. 

“I am pleased the Liberal Party has adopted exemptions for civil celebrants, along the lines of legislation my 2014 bill,” Senator Leyonhjelm said. “I have also shown Senator Brandis my 2016 bill exempting people who supply goods and services for weddings from breaching the Sex Discrimination Act. I believe that these kinds of tweaks help to make the legislation more acceptable to politicians in the Coalition and thus more likely to succeed.”

And even though its plebiscite question simply states “Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?”, the Turnbull Government seriously contemplates creating two separate forms of legal marriage - one of which fails to allow the full protection of federal anti-discrimination law to LGBTIQ couples.

The Guardian, 14 September 2016:

The government will propose new protections for “conscientious objectors” to same-sex marriage which marriage equality advocates fear could allow civil celebrants, registrars and even bakers and florists to refuse to serve same-sex weddings.

According to briefing notes on the plebiscite prepared for the Coalition party room, seen by Guardian Australia, the legislation would allow “conscientious objectors” to reject same-sex weddings, an exemption more extensive than merely allowing religious leaders to refuse to conduct them…..

The note said the government will introduce proposed amendments to the Marriage Act and other relevant legislation to give effect to the decision of the plebiscite “well in advance” of the popular vote.

“Those amendments will also include appropriate protections for religious freedom and conscientious objections,” it said.

ADVOCATES URGE LABOR & CROSS BENCH TO VETO PLEBISCITE / TURNBULL'S "PLAN B" SHOULD BE FREE VOTE IN PARLIAMENT

just.equal

www.equal.org.au

MEDIA RELEASE

28 August 2016

 

ADVOCATES URGE LABOR & CROSS BENCH TO VETO PLEBISCITE

TURNBULL'S "PLAN B" SHOULD BE FREE VOTE IN PARLIAMENT

"If the Prime Minister is really concerned about achieving marriage equality as quickly as possible he will have a back-up plan should a plebiscite be vetoed, and that 'Plan B' should be to allow a free vote in parliament."

- Rodney Croome

Advocates have dismissed a renewed call by the Prime Minister for a marriage equality plebiscite and urged the Senate to veto it.

Malcolm Turnbull has said a plebiscite is the quickest path to marriage equality but Labor is hardening its position against the plebiscite because of the harm and cost.

Long-time marriage equality advocate, Rodney Croome, said,

"I reject the Government's rhetoric about a plebiscite being the quickest or the only way forward for marriage equality, and call on Labor and the Senate cross bench to unconditionally block plebiscite enabling legislation."

"If the Prime Minister is really concerned about achieving marriage equality as quickly as possible he will have a back-up plan should a plebiscite be vetoed, and that 'Plan B' should be to allow a free vote in parliament."

"If a plebiscite is vetoed by the Senate the political landscape changes and I expect the issue to return to the Liberal Party room and for Liberals who support marriage equality to push for a free vote or cross the floor."

"The risk there isn't a free vote is a risk the LGBTI community is willing to take to avoid the hurt, harm and indignity of a plebiscite."

"This was confirmed by a recent scientific survey of the LGBTI community that was the largest of its kind ever conducted in Australia with over 5,500 respondents."

On Friday the Greens announced they will vote against plebiscite enabling legislation. The Nick Xenophon Team and Derryn Hinch say they also oppose a plebiscite, meaning if Labor opposes it too it cannot pass.

Abbott the hysterical historian

There’s no doubt about Tony Abbott – he’s the gift that keeps on giving

Matt Golding cartoon.

This is Tones the historian giving a definition of marriage though the ages.

Forget cultures which practice polyandry or polygamy. Ignore “walking marriage”, “fixed term marriage”, “ghost marriage”, “marriage to a deity”, “woman-woman marriage” and marriage involving a “two spirit” person.

No, it has definitely been lifetime monogamous marriage between one man and one woman since time immemorial, according to the MP for Warringah.

*Sound of  thousands of anthropologists laughing out loud*

Excerpt from Tony Abbott’s speech to an assembly of right-wing extremists at an Alliance Defending Freedom dinner on 28 January 2016:

Marriage, actually, was never just about two people who love each other. Siblings love each other. Parents love their children and vice versa. Friends can love each other. You don’t need to be married to love someone.

It’s only in recent times, that marriage has been about romantic love. Marriage arose as a way of dealing with human imperfection. It was to keep men more committed and less likely to abandon their wives and children – and I doubt that we have become so flawless that this no longer matters.

In Australia, just a decade ago, almost unanimously, the parliament affirmed that marriage was between a man and a woman…..

Indeed, around the world, some 17 countries now provide for same sex marriage. But 176 don’t – and few of them are likely to change any time soon.

Now, I know that numbers aren’t the only test – but it’s hardly self-evident that the 17 that have changed are right and that all the others are wrong.

Not long ago most gay activists rejected marriage as an oppressive institution.

Now they demand as their right what they recently scorned; they demand what was unimaginable in all previous times and still is in most places. They are seeking what has never been and expecting others to surrender what always has. It’s a massive ask — for me, an ask too far.

I support people’s right to make a case for the things they ­believe, and want them cour­teously heard, but policymakers should strive to hold the common ground.

In today’s world, we need less ideology and more common sense; we need less impatience and more respect; we need less shouting at people and more ­engagement with them.

We shouldn’t try to change something without understanding it, without grasping why it is that one man and one woman open to children until just a very few years ago has always and everywhere been considered the essence of marriage and the heart of family.

Of course, we can’t shirk our responsibilities to the future, but let’s also respect and appreciate values and institutions that have stood the test of time and pass them on, undamaged, when that’s best.

Some readers might also question Abbott's notion that in the West traditional marriage evolved as a way to protect women and children. Rather than as a way for men to protect their own political, property and inheritance rights.