Anglicans accept marriage views safe
The head of Australia’s second largest Christian denomination has admitted that there are adequate protections for religious groups in the Marriage Act and that none of the three marriage equality bills before the parliament would affect those protections.
The Anglican Primate of Australia, Dr Phillip Aspinall’s views about religious protections were made public by Australian Marriage Equality (AME) national campaign director Rodney Croome when he read out a letter from Aspinall in the closing minutes of the House of Representatives hearings into same-sex marriage held in the NSW Parliament today.
“It was a follow up to a conversation that I and others had with him about this issue and I understand that it is okay for me to cite this letter and I am certainly happy to present it,” Croome told the hearing.
“In it he confirms the Anglican belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, of course that hasn’t changed. But he is very clear when he says [religious protections are adequate].
In the letter, Aspinall said, “In the context of … the resolutions of the Anglican church supporting marriage as it currently is, I’m advised that the Marriage Act 1961 as it stands, contains adequate protections for religious freedom.”
“In particular Section 47 of the Act provides that a minister of religion is not obliged to solemnise any marriage, and the amendments proposed in the three bills now before parliament do not affect this protection.”
Croome told the inquiry that fears that religious groups would be compelled to marry people against their will were unfounded.
“There are very important religious leaders in Australia who are assured, even should this become law, and even though they oppose that change themselves, that religious protections will none-the-less be protected,” Croome told the hearing.
Earlier in the day groups representing civil celebrants raised concerned that celebrants, who were religious but not religious ministers, would be legally compelled to marry same-sex couples because non-aligned religious celebrants and secular civil celebrants had been rolled into the same category in 2003.
The Coalition of Celebrants Associations told the hearing that their members had diverse views on the issue and found it discriminatory that the proposed bills would exempt ministers of religion from performing same-sex marriages but not civil celebrants.
The Civil Celebrants Network said they supported same-sex marriage but expressed concern that civil celebrants with spiritual beliefs could be open to discrimination charges.
The Network said, however, that under Australian law marriage is a civil institution and they support same-sex marriage.
Engage Celebrants said they supported same-sex marriage and said that the current code of practices that regulated celebrants already required that they do not engage in discriminatory practice.
The group said that it would be unlikely that a same-sex couple would choose to enter into a contract with a celebrant who opposed same-sex marriage.
Engage also said that there could be other opt-outs that some celebrants would want, such as not having to marry persons of certain religious beliefs.
Australian Human Rights Commission president Catherine Branson told the hearing that she was confident that a civil celebrant refusing to marry a same-sex couple would be protected on the grounds of freedom of conscience.
Croome later told the hearing that it was his understanding that civil celebrants would be able to refuse to marry same-sex couples if that was against their religious belief and questioned why someone would want to be married by someone who did not want to marry them.
NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby senior policy advisor Senthorun Raj said that it was important that celebrants who offered their services to the wider community, and not just a particular religious group, be bound by the same laws as any other provider of a public service.
Religion is just glorified superstition. Why do people listen to these people?! Why would any thinking person want to be marriage by a religious celebrant (other than because it is ‘traditional’).
I thought Richard Pratt was dead?
@Richard Pratt .. wow, so much hatred, and so little truth in one post!
Marriage HAS NOT “..historically, around the world, always been, a union for life between a man and a woman,to create a family..” – as much as you may wish it otherwise marriage throughout history has taken many forms, the least common being “one man and one woman, married by choice and in love”. Marriage has more often been arranged, usually without any input from the woman, or polygamous, occasionally polyandrous, and even (oh no!) included same-sex couples (yep, plenty of documented cases “throughout history” of same-sex marriages).
The “Gaystapo” has already won the battle for children dear boy – we can, and indeed do, already have children. We can, and do, act as Foster Parents. We can, and indeed do, adopt.
Next time you decided to make all informed and irrational rant against homosexuals, how about you spend some time brushing up on your history first instead of checking out the gay porn to see what we get up to.
Some Christians believe novels will cause cancer, but the majority do not. The majority of Christians as the polls show support marriage equality. Same-sex couples have been getting married for thousands of years, and will continue to long after all those reading this have died. I am not with those seeking to take a couples right away to marry, it sounds more like Hitler then Jesus.
No matter what the Religious leaders say. Marriage has historically, around the world, always been, a union for life between a man and a woman,to create a family, which is the basic strength and security of any nation. It is a contradiction in terms and in natural fact to call a union between people of the same sex, marriage, and is dishonouring to traditional marriage. If this incredibly foolish proposed legislation becomes law,it will soon be followed, and in fact it has already started, by pressure from the Gaystapo for adoption of children, and invitrio fertilisation of homosexuals, together with pressure against anyone who speaks against it, especially religion, on the specious grounds of discrimination.
What a Pandora`s Box of social and personal evils for future generations will result- maybe this corrupt world deserves it!
Section 47 has to go. Religious condemnation of homosexuality is at the heart of our discrimination and, until that changes, gay people will always be on the back foot.