Senate’s marriage equality report condemns religious discrimination
THE Senate has released a consensus report on the government鈥檚 draft marriage equality bill, deciding not to endorse targeted discrimination against same-sex couples in wedding services.
Attorney-General George Brandis introduced late last year, which allowed civil celebrants and religious organisations and businesses to turn away same-sex couples based on their religious beliefs.
There were calls to scrap the religious discrimination from the legislation, with a indicating that 90 per cent of LGBTI Australians were against them.
Advocates have welcomed the multi-party consensus report, saying it provides a pathway for marriage equality in this term of parliament.
Convenor of Rainbow Families Victoria, Felicity Marlowe, said it was great to see the Senate take on board the recommendations it heard and read throughout its inquiry into the bill over the past few months.
鈥淲e are gratified to see that the committee listened to us and many others who expressed serious human rights concerns and that they have not endorsed anti-discrimination exemptions for civil celebrants, service providers, or businesses,鈥� she said.
鈥淭he time for equality is now, but not at the cost of allowing even a little bit of discrimination to exist in any proposed Marriage Bill.鈥�
In the report, the committee acknowledged that a reformed definition of marriage should be fully inclusive of trans and intersex Australians.
It also stated that civil celebrants should not be able to legally discriminate, including against same-sex couples.
And it proposed that a new category of 鈥榬eligious celebrants鈥� should be created for existing civil celebrants who, for example, serve small religious congregations.
Much like ministers of religion who act as marriage celebrants, religious celebrants would be able to legally refuse service to anyone.
Spokesperson for just.equal and marriage equality advocate Rodney Croome said he welcomed the Senate鈥檚 report.
鈥淲e welcome this report, not only because it fails to endorse proposed discrimination against same-sex couples but because it shows progress on marriage equality is possible when our elected members work across party lines,鈥� he said.
鈥淭his is just the latest of many parliamentary inquiries into marriage equality, which together have canvassed all the implications imaginable, so there are no longer any excuses for inaction.鈥�
Australian Greens LGBTI spokesperson and Senator Janet Rice side the report showed an unprecedented collaboration, negotiation, and consensus.
鈥淭he Greens took to the table a respect for the rights of people of faith, but did not waver in our view that these must not be at the expense of the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and intersex Australians,鈥� she said.
鈥淭he time for marriage equality is long overdue. For all LGBTI Australians and their families, this gives us hope that the wait is close to over.
鈥淣ow, the Coalition and Labor party, who urged us to stick with consensus in the committee despite our concerns, must work with us and deliver on a bill and the votes that will get it through parliament.鈥�
Now is the time for Malcolm Turnbull to face down the ultra-right-wing, neo-fascists within the Liberal Party and the Nationals. Almost without exception the nation is in favour of Full Equality for all and that includes marriage. Personally, I think anyone who, on the basis of their committed religious beliefs, is opposed to such marriages should have the Right to refuse to perform them. After all those multi-billion dollar businesses called the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglicans, Salvos, Uniting Church, Hillsong,, other Pentecostals, other self-proclaimed Christian sects, other religions such as Islam and Judaism have the Right to refuse so why should an individual with a strong religious belief who is also a Marriage Celebrant be denied their Right to refuse? It’s called Freedom of Choice. Just as we will, eventually, have the Freedom to Choose whether or not we Marry.
That being said, given the massive number of current marriages – religious or not, which end in acrimonious and very expensive divorce I cannot for the life of me understand why any self-respecting GLBTIQ-er would want to risk it.
I had a partnership which lasted for just under 30 years. On my partner’s death there were no problems with inheritance for we had made our wills as secure as possible in each others favour.
Yes, I think we should have the Legal RIGHT to go through a Marriage. We can be sure that when, in particular, those two major Australian Religious Businesses, the Catholic and Anglican Churches, realise how much money they are missing out on they will quietly abandon their opposition. After all is said and done they are all in it for the Money and their mythical deities are now irrelevant.