An amendment to the same-sex marriage bill that would allow religious groups to deny goods or services to same-sex couples looking to wed would effectively legalise discrimination against LBGTIQ people, the ACT government says.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Under the proposed changes to the Marriage Act, religious bodies and organisations could legally refuse to "make facilities available or provide goods or services" to people marrying their same-sex partner.
But in a submission to the Senate inquiry scrutinising the amendments, ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr, ACT Attorney-General Gordon Ramsay and justice minister Shane Rattenbury said the clause was "inconsistent" with Australian discrimination laws.
They also said there was no "rational basis" for creating a right for marriage celebrants who are not ministers of religion to discriminate.
"This provision goes significantly beyond what we consider appropriate for the protection of freedom of religion," their submission said.
"As members of a free and democratic society, Australians expect to be able to live their lives without being harassed, victimised or excluded from participating in the community. However it appears that the proposed legislation seeks to formalise existing institutional prejudices and discrimination into law rather than remove them."
The submission was to a Senate inquiry examining religious and conscientious exemptions to performing same-sex marriages in the draft marriage amendment bill.
The bill would replace the definition of marriage as between "two people" instead of "a man and a woman".
It would also strengthen protection for religious ministers who refused to marry same-sex couples, while non-religious celebrants would be allowed to refuse to marry a couple on "conscientious" grounds.
However the Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW believed the exemption could be used by businesses run by opponents of same-sex marriage.
Acting president Elizabeth Wing said the exemption should be clarified so only recognised religious bodies could rely on it.
"In this way a church hall could seek to rely on the exemption to refuse a venue booking but a civic function centre could not, regardless of the religious beliefs of its owners," Ms Wing wrote in her submission.
Canberra's Ivan Hinton-Teoh from national LGBTIQ advocacy group Just.Equal was concerned by the precedent the amendment would set.
A survey by Just.Equal and Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays of almost 6500 LGBTIQ people found 90 per cent were opposed to the amendment.
"In Australia churches and ministers have well established legal protections regarding who they marry and who they don't," Mr Hinton-Teoh said.
"However, the exposure draft goes beyond this by creating new ways to discriminate against LGBTIQ couples that would remain unlawful discrimination if it was subjected to any other couple.
"Once it is established in legislation that there is a faith-based right for organisations affiliated with certain religious views to discriminate against one group it becomes a precedent for expanding those rights to discriminate against others who don't comply with these religious views.
"Will it become legal for single mothers, divorcees or people of other faiths or cultural backgrounds to be turned away from businesses who cite genuine religious or conscientious belief?"
Peak celebrant bodies have also clashed over the proposed exemptions.
In their submission, the Coalition of Celebrant Association (CoCA) argued celebrants who objected to same-sex marriage on religious or conscientious grounds should have to apply to the Commonwealth Marriage Registrar for an exemption.
"Any marrying couple, who meet the criteria for valid marriage, have the right to expect they would not be refused that service on the basis of a personal objection from a professional civil marriage celebrant," their submission said.
"The purpose of legislative changes under consideration is to remove discrimination against same-sex couples in the Australian Marriage Act.
"If the right to discriminate is extended ... all marriage celebrants will be able to perpetuate discrimination against same-sex couples and thus not be required to apply the definition of the legal service (in this case valid marriage) that this legislation is designed to provide."
However the Australian Federation of Civil Celebrants supported the insertion of a clause to allow government registered celebrants to refuse to marry same-sex couples, although national president Brian Richardson acknowledged that decision was not unanimous
A public hearing on the amendments will be held in Canberra on January 25. The committee's report is due by February 13.
