Marriage equality legislation is in the works. The wedding celebrants in Australia are anticipating the busiest season ever. With the new laws on the table, however, not all marriages are equal.
Today, the Senate is debating a private member’s Bill sponsored by Liberal Dean Smith. Attorney-General George Brandis said that he would like to amend the Bill to extend protections for civil celebrants.
The amendment, if it passes, would allow civil celebrants to refuse a marriage ceremony due to their religious or conscientious beliefs (as another marriage amendment bill did earlier in the year).
It is not a good idea to allow civil marriage celebrants who are non-religious to discriminate. This is a far more serious matter than protecting religious freedom.
After doing extensive research on Australia’s marriage laws and the civil marriage celebrants, I am convinced that Brandis’ proposed changes would undermine Australia’s flourishing civil wedding system by sanctioning discrimination towards LGTBIQ clients. The proposed changes will undermine marriage equality and allow for humiliating and unnecessary discrimination.
The right of civil marriage celebrants to refuse to solemnize marriages undermines Australia’s leading civil marriage celebrant program. This compromises Australia’s established pluralistic marriage system, which was inherited from England.
Unique weddings, quirky celebrants, and Australia’s contribution:
It is useful to understand marriage equality laws by understanding the history of marriages in Australia.
Prior to 1973, when Australia created the world’s first civil celebrant program, civil wedding ceremonies in Australia were formal, dry, and brief. They were conducted by officials of the state at registry offices.
Read more: As Australians say ‘yes’ to marriage equality, the legal status over human rights takes center stage.
The civil celebrancy program was initially set up by the Whitlam-era attorney-general, Lionel Murphy. It went under the publicity radar, unlike the no-fault divorce reforms debated and passed by the federal parliament at the same time.
According to Dally Messenger, one of Australia’s earliest civil celebrants, the civil celebrant program allowed for alternative civil to religious wedding ceremonies that were dignified. The ceremony could be held in a location with symbols and attire that matched the couple’s beliefs.
Murphy appointed a very small group of civil wedding celebrants between 1973 and 1974. Around 9,000 civil marriage celebrants are registered in Australia today. Along with the secularisation in Australian society, the civil celebrancy program has made civil wedding ceremonies more attractive to brides and grooms.
Before Elvis’ Little Wedding Chapel in Vegas, there was Australia.
Many celebrants in Australia advertise their services, including garden weddings. Other options include:
- Weddings at home.
- Weddings on the beach.
- Weddings underwater.
- Underwater weddings.
- Even weddings with almost-naked couples (the celebrant stated that “there’s nothing you wouldn’t do for each other”).
If civil marriage celebrants were allowed to refuse to perform a ceremony due to their religious or conscientious beliefs, they would be undermining a major goal of the civil celebrancy program – to provide a non-humiliating option to religious wedding ceremonies.
Anyone who is told by a celebrant that they cannot be married because of their personal beliefs about them is being degraded. This humiliation should not be allowed by law.
What is the difference between a civil or religious wedding? What is the value of choice?
The proposal to exempt civil marriage celebrants undermines Australia’s long-standing pluralistic marriage law system.
Since colonial days, Australians have been able to choose between a civil ceremony and a religious ceremony. Both are valid marriages under the law.
This system was adopted in England, where civil and religious marriages (Church of England marriages, Jewish marriages, and Quaker weddings) have been recognized since 1836.
In Australia today, marriages are required to be performed by law according to the practices and rites of many different religions. Civil marriages are performed according to the Marriage Act and are more heavily regulated than religious marriages.
Read more: The marriage equality survey is won, but the battle against discrimination continues.
Most Australians choose to have a non-religious wedding. For nearly two decades, civil marriage has been overwhelmingly the most popular way to be married in Australia. In 2015, almost 75% of all marriages were performed by a civil celebrant rather than a minister of religion.
In the second half of the 20th Century, civil marriages became more common. In 1959, only 11.4% of marriages took place in civil ceremonies. Since 1999, civil marriages outnumber religious marriages in Australia.
Civil marriages will take on a religious element if civil marriage celebrants are given the right to refuse a marriage based on a couple’s sexuality or their religious beliefs. The separation between civil and religious marriages in England and Australia, which has existed since 1836, is reversed.
The exemption will restrict the ability of Australians who are not religious to choose a civil wedding, despite the current trend toward civil marriage.
In modern Australian society and law, discrimination based on sexuality or gender is not tolerated. We cannot allow prejudice in the provision of wedding services that are secular if we want to achieve marriage equality. Anti-discrimination legislation exists to ensure that all Australians are treated equally, regardless of their attributes.
Brandis’ changes go beyond religious freedom. The proposed laws, by introducing a basis for discrimination against civil wedding celebrants, undermine Australia’s human rights framework as well as the long-standing tradition of civil marriage in Australia.
