Only churches should control marriage: Clive Palmer

Only churches should control marriage: Clive Palmer
Image: Clive Palmer at this morning's press conference. (PHOTO: David Alexander; Star Observer)

THE power over marriage should be taken out of the hands of the government and given solely to churches, according to Palmer United Party (PUP) leader Clive Palmer.

Speaking at a press conference in Sydney this morning, the federal Fairfax MP announced his party’s policy on marriage equality — devised following 12 months of research and feedback — was to ensure churches had the freedom to reject granting marriages to same-sex couples without fear of facing legal backlash.

Couples of any gender would either be able to enter into a civil union or seek approval from a church if they wanted to be married, according to the PUP policy.

“Many churches are worried that same-sex couples will take legal action against them, forcing them to admit and marry people against their beliefs,” Palmer said in a statement.

“It has long been accepted that separation between church and state forms the basis of any democracy. We need to ensure that the reach of government does not direct or require any religious organisations or churches to act against their beliefs.

“Likewise we must ensure that all citizens are equal under the law.”

Claiming that the Coalition and Labor parties have a shared belief in a national plebiscite – Labor’s official party policy actually being in favour of a free vote in parliament — Palmer said he opposed the idea.

“They seem to be putting off the decision because they don’t want to face reality,” he told the press gathering this morning.

“And what happens if we have a plebiscite will be that the community will be divided, some will ask when the next plebiscite will be.

“So we need to have a policy that will provide certainty to the community and more importantly doesn’t divide and separate it.”

Arguing that marriage has been the domain of religion for generations, Palmer said same-sex couples would not want to be married in a church that did not accept their relationship.

“You can’t legislate for social acceptance. Real change only comes by people accepting each other,” he said.

“If you’re a gay couple you don’t want to go to a church where you’re not accepted. One thing we know about worshipping religion is that we want to be accepted by our peers.

“If you want to get married it’s up to you. There are churches that will marry gay couples… and accept gay people.

“The real proposition is this: would you want to be a member of a church that discriminated against you?”

Leaving control of marriage to the government would only see continued fighting and division from whichever side lost the debate, according to Palmer.

“While this policy won’t help everyone, it goes a long way to bringing a resolution to the situation,” he said.

The PUP leader also said legislative power shouldn’t be wielded as a “sword to attack” those opposing a particular position.

“Otherwise we’ll have a society that’s fragmented,” he said.

Evading questions over his personal stance on marriage equality — which he said was irrelevant to the debate — Palmer said the potential problem over forcing couples of any gender who may want a secular marriage to obtain a religious one, went down to how people defined marriage.

“We’re talking about the rights of people and we’re saying that citizens can’t sue churches to make them be accepted into that church,” he said.

“We’re also saying at the same time that every citizen has the right to a civil union. Now they can call it a marriage if they want to, it’s up to them. All the legal rights that you have in the family law act will still remain.”

On whether the PUP policy was just installing another two-tiered marriage system in Australia, Palmer disagreed.

“Not really, the only argument to say [marriage] is a level playing field is that all citizens have that right and should be treated equally under the law. I’m a legislator, that’s something I accept.

“We’re saying that ‘yes. it’s a valid argument’. The next argument is does a minority group regardless of who they are have the rights… to make any organisation follow what they believe? I don’t think they do.

“Doesn’t matter if it’s gays or who it is really. Religion is separate from government.”

Australian Marriage Equality (AME) criticised the PUP policy, calling it “radical and unnecessary”.

“The simplest way to ensure churches aren’t forced to marry same-sex couples is to allow clergy to refuse to marry them,” AME national director Rodney Croome said.

“The Marriage Act currently allows clergy to refuse to marry any couple who don’t conform to church doctrine and that provision should simply be expanded to include same-sex couples when marriage equality is enacted.

“Mr Palmer’s proposal radically alters the meaning of marriage by effectively denying marriage to the 70 percent of Australian couples who currently marry in civil ceremonies.

“Most opposite-sex and same-sex couples will find Mr Palmer’s policy unnecessary, complicated and offensive to their aspiration to marry.”

Croome expressed concerns that explicit religious control over marriage could see churches define marriage for themselves.

“Giving religious bodies a monopoly over marriage could lead to marriage being defined in ways most Australians find unacceptable, including polygamy and child marriage,” he said.

However, Croome welcomed Palmer’s rejection of a plebiscite and urged him to continue his support for a free vote and pressure Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to grant one within his party.

“All MPs, regardless of party, should be free to vote according to their own beliefs on marriage equality,” Croome said.

You May Also Like

10 responses to “Only churches should control marriage: Clive Palmer”

  1. Clive Palmer is a total wanker, much like our last one Tony Abbott!

  2. I am a gay man who wants to get married to my partner of 22 years, but it is way too late now Australia. ISIS and the “moderate” Muslims within Australia have taken over the country by the millions in secret government boats and planes partnered an alliance with the Australian Christian Lobby to DEFEAT this marriage bill within the Australian Parliament! I will be moving to Wales permanently by early next year. It is very sad that Australia has let itself become a Muslim nation – much like Indonesia our neighbours to our north – which has an enforced “Sharia law” and that means the death penalty for gay men like us! Muslims are peaceful and Islam is a peaceful religion my arse!

  3. MYTH: Australia is the only western nation that does not have marriage equality;
    FACT: Ten western nations besides Australia still do not have marriage equality implemented, namely – Northern Ireland, Malta*, Germany, Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Finland, Faroe Islands, Greenland and Gibraltar. These places still ban marriage equality as well as Australia!

    *Malta does recognises overseas same-sex marriages, but same-sex marriages can not be preformed within Malta itself.

  4. I am deeply embarrassed to be Australian – in which we still nearly towards 2016, debate this marriage equality! Come on Australia I thought you were the “land of fair go” – but I was wrong! It is very simple – pass the “Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2015” into law now!

  5. Requiring all couples to register with a Mosque, Synagogue or Church would exclude Atheists. Atheists can currently legally marry, and their relationship isn’t called “Civil Union”. They shouldn’t be forced to contact a church to get married in.

    Marriages by churches have no force of law unless entered into the government register. I’d prefer to adopt the French system, where marriage is conducted solely by the government and made available to people of all faiths, and of no religion, and to all couples of legal age who wish to tie the knot, regardless of their respective gender. Church marriages should be ceremonial only, as they cannot agree with other on very much at all, e.g. divorce, birth control and women’s ordination.

  6. Actually, marriage is a civil union. Whether or not a church is involved (and that is not obligatory), marriage is a legal status and its entitlements and responsibilities extend through scores of statutes (which mostly come into play in emergencies) which recognize the legal relationship that has been created between the partners and with their children. The churches, on the other hand, perform ceremonies (which vary in style and content considerably from one religion to the next) which, without legal registration, have no effect. Of course, it has always been, everywhere, in law, the case–including in all jurisdictions with anti-discrimination and same-sex marriage legislation, that no religious organization is ever obliged to conduct a marriage, or any other ceremony, with which they do not agree. To pretend otherwise is a lie. “Civil unions”, on the other hand, are a recent and artificial concoction, having only those legal aspects that the legislators in question have chosen to put in, and it is never as comprehensive, legally, as marriage. This is why a “civil union” in one jurisdiction is never accepted in any other jurisdiction, even if that other jurisdiction has “civil unions” since no two are the same. It is also the case that this clown, Clive Palmer, is a moron and a bigot.

  7. To even attempt to address any of the absurdities trumpeted by this ass “Clive”, would merely elevate garbage to the status of actual political commentary.

  8. Actually he makes a lot of sense on some occasions

    Marriage Equality will occur in it’s due course

    I don’t mind the plebiscite idea anymore and I think the gay lobby need to start looking at other alternatives

    Direct democracy is a great idea

    Malcolm Turnball is right

  9. Here’s the question:

    Not being Australian, nor in Australia….will he consent or have an issue if a church is willing to marry same-sex couples? Or will he fight that as well?

  10. I am very embarrassed to be Australian with these four clowns running the show in parliament (Malcolm Turnbull, Bill Shorten, Clive Palmer and Warren Truss).

    I thought Clive Palmer was better than this, but I was dead wrong. His party is a total joke now and he will lose his seat of Fairfax in the next election. Funny how the seat is named after a corporation of newspapers! he is yesterdays news in the trash!

    It was bad enough with Tony Abbott, John Howard and Mark Latham, but this now takes the cake literally! Oh great another homophobe, forgive me while I throw-up in a bucket!

    Marriage equality will never be achieved within Australia, with this lot of clowns!