The Turnbull government's proposed version of marriage equality would further entrench discrimination by allowing civil celebrants and service providers to refuse to undertake gay weddings, the peak law body says.
Basically, the exposure draft of the Coalitionâs marriage equality bill (which is unlikely to ever come to a vote, given that theyâre refusing to do anything without a plebiscite) allows exemptions to anti-discrimination law for:
Religious ministers in solemnising marriages;
Civil celebrants;
Religious organisations in providing goods and services (like renting out venues).
Religious ministers can already refuse to solemnise marriages and already have access to exemptions to federal anti-discrimination law, so itâs not the end of the world to be explicit about how the Marriage Act and the Sex Discrimination Act interact, so that everyone concerned can be clear in their legal rights. (Even if it feels icky to specifically refer to same-sex relationships, rather than just relying on the general exemptions for marriages that donât conform to a ministerâs religious requirements. They havenât bothered to be specific about a ministerâs right to refuse to solemnise a marriage for a divorcee, for example, even though that divorceeâs rights have the same protection as an LGBTQ personâs under the Sex Discrimination Act. That said, this issue is one of symbolism rather than legal rights.)
In contrast, to me, itâs the second and third points that are really a problem, because they do broaden the freedom of civil celebrants and religious organisations to discriminate against same-sex couples and trans people (especially nonbinary trans people) who are marrying.
Similarly, religious organisations who provide goods and services to the general public (as opposed to only adherents of their own religion) shouldnât be exempted from normal anti-discrimination law principles just because some of those members of the public are in a same-sex relationship or because a member of the couple is non-binary. Weâre not talking about religious services or anything like thatâweâre talking about (for example) renting out a venue that they already make available to the public for whatever purpose, including members of the public who arenât necessarily followers of their faith or who are celebrating things that arenât necessarily permitted by that faith. (And where something is truly against the faith of a religious organisation, they already have access to an exemption from anti-discrimination law. They donât need this to protect their religious sensibilities if renting a venue to LGBTQ people is so terrible.)
Note that both these exemptions in the draft bill (purportedly for religious sensibilities) only apply where âthe refusal is because the marriage is not the union of a man and a womanâ. They donât apply to other situations where the couple marrying donât comply with the celebrant or religious organisationâs faith requirements. Theyâre not permitting religious organisations to refuse to rent a venue to divorcees or people from other religions or people of no religionâthe exemption only applies to weddings between same-sex couples and/or where at least one partner is nonbinary. Thatâs not to say that any of those other sorts of discrimination would be acceptable, but just to say that the contrast makes really, really clear that the motive here isnât a general religious freedom: itâs absolutely about giving a legal okay to discrimination against LGBTQ people specifically. Itâs not about religious freedomâitâs about saying that homophobia is acceptable.
I mean, the question of this particular exposure draft is probably academic. The Coalition arenât going to allow it to come to a vote, anyway. Still, itâs worth noting the problems with this draft bill, because there eventually will be a draft bill that parliament passes into lawâand itâs useful to know in advance what we do and donât want it to contain.
(Anyway, if you want to read the draft bill yourself, itâs available here. For comparison, the current Marriage Act is available here and the Sex Discrimination Act is available here.)
blakekathryn
jacobvanloon
discoholicmusic
prguitarman
gummygunk
areudirty
yousharknotpass
dailybridgerton
