Religions are protected already, move on
HERE’S why the 14 religious leaders campaigning for changes to the same-sex marriage amendment are wrong, writes Paul Hegerty.
Rendezview
Don't miss out on the headlines from Rendezview. Followed categories will be added to My News.
LAST week 14 religious leaders wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition asking them to amend the changes to the Marriage Act to allow for same-sex marriage.
It is worth pointing out why their request is wrong and fosters discrimination.
The letter implies parents don’t have the right to ensure their children are educated according to their religious and moral convictions. Parents have this right. They just don’t have the right as individuals to control schools and what they teach. Schools will always raise issue that parents don’t agree with. It is part of parenting to talk with children about topics that arise at school and explain the family’s worldview when they differ. It is wrong to expect schools to redesign their programs just so a couple of parents do not have to do their job.
The letter also implies religious organisations will be denied the right to have their facilities used in accordance with their religious purposes. Of course they have this right. However, they don’t have the right, and nor should anyone else, to use their property for commercial gain by renting it out and expect not to be governed by the same laws as their competitors and consumers.
If you don’t want to lease your facilities to the general public, take them off the market. If you do trade in the market place, then you have to accept the general public as your customer, regardless of race, gender, religion or relationships. The choice is yours. Running a commercial business is not a specifically religious activity, regardless of who owns it. What the letter is asking for is the right to discriminate against certain consumers in the market place.
The letter then shows a fake concern for the freedom of charities to express their view. The hollowness of this part of the letter comes from the fact that freedom of charities actually is under threat from the Federal Government and has been from other governments in Australia. But none of this has to do with marriage. Currently the Federal Government is considering banning charities from speaking out prior to elections if they receive overseas funding.
In recent years a Queensland government tried a similar ban on not-for-profit organisations that received government funding.
If the proponents of the letter were really trying to protect free speech they would be targeting these provisions.
Nothing in the Marriage Act will gag people’s religious teachings about marriage. But this legislation could silence some of our biggest charities if, for example, they receive disaster recovery donations from New Zealand after the next cyclone or flood.
The authors of the letter appear to be neglecting the real political freedoms of their flock while obsessing over their pelvic theology.
Finally, the request to have a permanent cadre of discriminatory civil celebrants is a complete beat up. Civil celebrants administer marriage according to the Marriage Act.
There are already allowances for religious ministers or for religious civil celebrants from small communities. This makes sense because religious groups only offer those services that support their religious mission. There is no need to ask them to do otherwise.
Existing civil celebrants will have transition arrangements. This is a decision of procedural fairness since the terms of engagement are changing. But it would be an act of civil vandalism to make a special allowance for people to sign up as civil celebrants who intend to discriminate against people whose relationships they don’t approve of.
There is no compulsion for such people to become civil celebrants, nor is it a religious duty for a private individual to become one.
No one has the right to undermine Australian law and civil rights.
The letter has more claims, none of them any more legitimate that the others. It would be a disgrace if members of the Government both slowed down the passage of the Bill for marriage equality and pandered to the demands of small groups like these.
There are thousands more religious leaders in this country and millions of adherents. Most of us are not worried because we know our rights and respect the rights of others.
Christmas is coming. Lets make it a happy one full of hope and joy for those Australians who have waited far too long for the right to get married.
Paul Hegerty is a former Catholic priest and now management consultant with Grevillea Consultants.
Originally published as Religions are protected already, move on