Marriage ban challenge

Marriage ban challenge

The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) will hear a complaint challenging the Australian Government’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Community activist and International Lesbian and Gay Association representative for Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands, Simon Margan, submitted the complaint on Wednesday.

Margan told the Star Observer he had been working on the complaint for some time, and that due to a lack of broad legislation covering sexuality discrimination he was challenging the ban from a sex discrimination angle.

“The AHRC is very limited in the extent that it can look at sexuality discrimination, so the main focus will be the sex discrimination angle,” Margan said.

“Many legal cases have said that sexuality discrimination is just a smaller category of a broader category of sex discrimination.

I’m also looking at the marital status discrimination side of the ban. The definition of marriage in the legislation that the AHRC works from isn’t gender specific and it actually works as a superior legislation to the Marriage Act.

“There are other related human rights issues that I’ll be looking at when we get down to discussing the complaint at the first conference with the government — religious freedom and things like that.”

Margan said it was difficult to know in what time frame the complaint would be heard but he was hoping to see it resolved quickly.

“I doubt it will take longer than it takes the Parliament to get its act together on legislating, but if it does, obviously, my complaint will become superfluous,” he said.

“The AHRC has made recommendations to the Government in the past on what reforms need to be made so I’m hoping it can be an added incentive to the legislation that’s already been planned.”

Margan said the AHRC mentioning the ban on same-sex marriage as an area of discrimination against sexual minorities in its report to the United Nations’ Universal Periodic Review of Australia’s human rights was a good sign of which way the commission might lean.

“If they find it’s sex discrimination that’s fantastic and they could invalidate the same-sex marriage ban,” he said.

However if the outcome is that the AHRC does not find the ban to be discriminatory, Margan is prepared to appeal the decision in the federal courts.

You May Also Like

16 responses to “Marriage ban challenge”

  1. Baz, there is good argument that Australia is a soft theocracy ( http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10518&page=0 ) with a limited separation of Church and State ( http://www.hsnsw.asn.au/MaxWallace.html ).

    Many Australians seem to think we have a broad separation of church and state. In reality, we have a set of narrow conditional exclusions between church and the Commonwealth of Australia. Although modelled on the establishment clause of the US constitution, S116 of our constitution ( http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s116.html ) is read less strictly by our High Court. It only limits religious embranglement with government in certain specific ways and only federally. That’s why the Lord’s Prayer is able to remain in federal parliament to this day, why the NSW government was able to fund Catholic World Youth Day and keep Special Religious Education in public schools, etc.

  2. Here, hear Geoffrey. Since the Reformation almost 500 years ago, the steady development of secular, democratic societies involved minimising legal, political and religious intrusion into the private life of citizens. Look at the first 14 amendments to the U.S. Constitution for a perfect example of what I’m talking about. The question is why marriage is still licensed by governments, not why are some people excluded? Will the gold ring loose its value if you don’t have a Certificate signed by the Registrar? We are truly going backwards. I’ll say it again: This Emperor isn’t wearing any clothes!!!

  3. I have just received a kind letter from Paul Howes, National Secretary to the Australian Workers’ Union. He has said amongst other great words of support, “Hopefully, more and more leaders of the Australian community will come out to advocate for the end of all discrimination on the basis of sexuality”. He goes on to say he hopes all discrimination against our community will end very very soon.

    Many people are looking at all areas of discrimination thanks the Same-Sex marriage debate, and the unique ability of it to pierce the many areas of deep oppression, that some of us are subject to, such as the older members of the community, as well as Intersex and Transgender people that are often forgotten in the battle for freedom, let alone those who wish to marry our love.

    I am so proud of the profound debate about Same-Sex Marriage, and the resulting discussions about the areas we are discriminated against.

  4. Isnt it funny how things have changed! 30 years ago feminists and radical queers were arguing for ‘smash the family! smash the state!’ and now were are all for nice nuclear families and cosy relationships with the state. I agree with Julian to some extent, Im a gay man and I dont want marriage as an institution. Its a very old conservative notion whereby marriage was used by the established Church to guard property rights and so forth.
    Oh, how middle-class we’ve all become!

  5. It’s a breath of fresh air to see you admit Dave that this is a media beat-up. Careful what you read though, there’s no question about the separation of church and state. Australia is a secular country, it’s enshrined in section 116 of our Constitution. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

  6. It is a breath of fresh air to see so much talk about our rights. Same-Sex marriage has got all the politicians talking. The media is now focusing on discrimination in all its ugly forms. Even the Liberals are now putting together a GLBTI group of “friendly” politicians.

    The mainstream media love it. There has been nothing like it for years. They are forced to think about the areas of discrimination as the focus is why we have inequality. Suddenly at the election we heard from Tony Abbott saying he will look at the Federal Equal Opportunity Act. Labor has said the same.

    Like it or not, the debate about Same-Sex marriage has such eloquence that it gives focus to our rights. Politicians against it are saying they do not support any discrimination, but they do not support Same-Sex Marriage. The media is then questioning them over things like the Federal Equal Opportunity Act, health access, and education access. A school girl who cannot dance with her love becomes a huge story. All of a sudden Labor has money to educate nursing home staff and run some homophobia education groups.

    Same-Sex Marriage has called into question the relationship of religious groups and government. It questions the separation of Church and State. It brings most of the community with it. These are exciting times. It is great to see conservative MP’s forced to say on the public record they are not opposed to discrimination. They then have to justify the discrimination in the many areas apart from marriage. They are scrambling all over the place.

    The battle goes on. We are winning this, the good fight!

  7. Julian, your views on marriage are totally misguided and factually incorrect. I’d feel sorry for your stupidity if your comments weren’t so potentially damaging.
    Firstly, you said that marriage has always been between a man and a woman, but that’s wrong. In ancient Rome and Greece (possibly the most enduring and influential western civilisations) same sex marriage and unions occured.
    Secondly, you think that marriage has always been a religious institution. Do your research, dude! Marriages were traditionally used for economic reasons or political alliances, and of course (but less often) love. Today, in ‘western civilisation’, atheists and agnostics get married all the time – are you against those unions too?
    I don’t know what you mean by ‘homosexual acts’?? Heterosexual couples often perform the same acts as homosexuals do, so if we are disorded so are you

  8. Excellent point Clinton Mead, women are not equal to men – we even have a Federal Ministry for the Status of Women to rectify that – http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/about/overview/Pages/default.aspx

    So how does a marriage between two unequal parties set a benchmark of equality for another sector of the community? It’s nonsense. Bleat about same-sex marriage all you like but get serious and stop calling it equality.

    Why isn’t there an Office of the Status of GLBTI?

  9. Julian

    I’m intrigued to know how the GLBT community is FORCING same-sex marriage on the rest of the world. Straight people will *still* be able to marry members of the opposite sex!

    Believe what you want, but this actually *is* about love and we just want to have our relationships recognised in law and protected in the same way that straight people have taken for granted for generations.

  10. Since women generally have lower incomes than men, you could potentially argue that allowing men to only marry women is sexual discrimination against men.

    This is particularly discriminatory against men from lower socio-economic groups, as this makes it harder for them to find wealthier partners and hence hinders them from improving their economic position, at least through marriage.

    Just a thought of a possible approach.

  11. In virtually EVERY enduring civilisation in recorded human history, MARRIAGE has always been (a) between a MAN and a WOMAN (b) a RELIGIOUS institution. In Western civilisation, that is indisputably based on the Jewish-Christian religious traditions (take the Australian and US constitutions a clear examples) it has been long recognised that homosexuality contradicts NATURAL LAW and that homosexual acts are therefore disordered. It’s not rocket science: even an alien taking brief glance at the human body could immediately recognise this!

    Yet the vocal,and VERY small minority of gay people in our country continue to try to FORCE their world views on ALL OTHER CITIZENS and change the definition of marriage in which the stability of our society has been grounded and that has stood for century upon century. It may take 2-3 generations, but Australia will reap a whirl wind of social destruction if the gay lobby succeeds. This is not at all about ‘LOVE’. What rubbish. This is about a small, vocal, cashed up minority forcing its world view, its religious ideals, on the rest of Australia. The polls? Bogus. This is certain death for the ALP at the next election.