Updates to earlier posts on Christian Marriage. The ideal of not imposing an individual religious view on others implies equality of intention not to impose constraints back upon those with a religious view. That goodwill is not evident.

Prior Articles

This post provides a further update on three earlier posts about Christian Marriage:

• Christian Marriage

• Christian Marriage: Update #1

• State of Freedom? Since superceded by State of Freedom: Update #1

New Links

Church & Christian Leaders

• Aggregated statements from leaders of all Christian denominations. This article indicates almost unanimous recommendations to church members to reject the proposed changes. This rare degree of unity and unanimity also reflects the exercise of a deep seated duty of care towards their members who could face substantial legal and employment penalties simply for publicly or privately expressing their Christian viewpoint and values after any change of the Marriage Act.

• Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne

• Catholic Archbishop of Canberra

• Aboriginal Cultural Leaders presented the Uluru Bark Petition to Parliament in August 2015 outlining the Aboriginal cultural importance of retaining the definition of marriage as between a male and a female. This also illustrates the point in a previous post that the institution of marriage as uniquely a male/female relationship pre-dated the advent of any UK legislation, the Federation or any Australian legislation. The institution of marriage as a unique male/female relationship is beneficial for the continued well-being of society as a whole.

Other Impacts

Proponents are expressing their view that an altered definition is only about who may or may not have the State define their relationship as a “Marriage”. Unfortunately, this significantly understates the wide-ranging suite of impacts that are already present. For example, even the implied Constitutional right to Freedom of Political Communication, which is the only right to freedom of speech that exists in Australian Law, has now been ruled as not establishing any individual right in law. The recent High Court decision, to deny a further right of appeal to a Defence Force employee who was terminated for publicly expressing personal views at odds with his employer, is a chillingly objective red flag indicating the status of Freedom of Speech in this nation. The legal issues in dispute are outlined here – these pre-dated the High Court’s recent ruling in the case.

Ironically, the Catholic Church has had to clarify that it will not seek to terminate the employment of personnel who become SSM marriage partners if the Plebiscite is successful and the Marriage Act is changed. This highlights the utter inconsistency and incompatibility of the two cases – SSM advocates claim protection under the anti-discrimination provisions for their freedom of belief and expression, but Christian Marriage advocates have no legislative head of protection for their freedom of belief and expression.

The best overview of the status of Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Association are contained in submissions to the Parliamentary Inquiry into the Status of the Human Right to Freedom of Religion or Belief. The submission from the Centre for Independent Studies surveys the status. The Australian Catholic Bishop’s Conference submission surveys the consequences of the current gaps in Australian Law, and the Anglican Diocese of Sydney submission recommends legislation be adopted to establish a positive right to protection of freedom of religion. Crafting exemptions from anti-discrimination legislation for ministers of religion, celebrants and religious organisations are insufficient to remedy the current gaps, let alone any new gaps if the Marriage Act were to be changed.

Summary

Even if you subscribe to the ideal of not imposing an individual religious view on others, you could not, in fairness use that to claim support for the proponents’ case. That ideal implies equality of freedoms. Yet, as we have seen, equality of freedoms does not exist in Australia. Indeed, the consequences of the proposed change extend far further. Without a legislative freedom of religion, belief or expression, the coercion from those protected by anti-discrimination freedoms of all kinds against those who hold contrary beliefs of any kind (not just Christian beliefs) will be unanswerable at law. The case of those opposing changes to the Marriage Act is becoming more compelling.