DAVID ADAMS reports…
The Australian Christian Lobby have repeated their call for a national plebiscite on the issue of same-sex marriage in Australia following the introduction of a new bill legalising same-sex marriage into Federal Parliament this week.
Speaking to Sight in the wake of Opposition Leader Bill Shorten”s presentation of his private member”s bill in parliament on Monday-the ACL”s chief-of-staff Martyn Iles said that if the bill currently before parliament is voted down-it would be an ideal time for a “circuit-breaker” such as a national plebiscite on the issue.
“It”s a risk but what the people decide is what the people decide…The advantage of a plebiscite is you get to put your argument in the public square.”– the ACL’s Martyn Iles on holding a national plebiscite on same-sex marriage |
“We’ve now had a total of 13 various legislative attempts around the issue of same-sex marriage at state and federal levels…” he said. “I think it’s time to do a circuit breaker on this or at least let the people decide. So I think that momentum will actually build so I think there’s a real chance that that could happen.”
He said while a plebiscite would represent a “risk for both sides of the debate”, “it may just be what is needed because politically, it probably isn’t going to go away”.
“It’s a risk but what the people decide is what the people decide…The advantage of a plebiscite is you get to put your argument in the public square.”
There have only ever been two plebiscites, a non-legally binding poll of the populace, conducted in Australia. Held in 1916 and 1917 – and related to the introduction of conscription during World War I – both returned no votes.
On Monday, in a move which has come under fire by other supporters of legalising same-sex marriage for failing to take a wider, bipartisan approach, Mr Shorten introduced a private member’s bill which would change the legal definition of marriage from between a man and a woman to “two people”, saying that it was time for Australia to act to make “marriage equality a reality”.
As well as calling for the bill, should it go to a vote, to be voted down, the ACL’s Mr Iles has also called for any vote to be preceded by a parliamentary inquiry or committee examine any proposed bill to ensure that “evidence from all stakeholders comes forward”.
“That there is at least for politicians and the public to have a look at some of the arguments that are being raised by us and others…” he said.
In his speech to parliament on Monday, Mr Shorten, noting that he believed in both God and in marriage equality and saw “nothing contradictory” in that belief, said that the legislation makes it clear “that no minister of religion can be compelled, or is obliged, to conduct a particular marriage”.
But speaking after the bill’s introduction on Monday, the ACL’s managing director Lyle Shelton said the organisation has “no confidence” that “so-called protections for churches will stand the test of time”. “Existing protections for religious freedom in anti-discrimination law are already under attack and some have been eroded,” he said.
Concerns over protections for clergy have also been raised by various church leaders including Archbishop Philip Freier, Anglican Primate of Australia, who last week said he had written to the Prime Minister Tony Abbott urging any that changes to the Marriage Act allow for clergy to follow their conscience.
“Ministers of religion recognised by a church or other religious body must have the right to refuse to solemnise a marriage if in doing so that would contravene his or her religious beliefs or the religious briefs of the church or other religious body,” he wrote in the letter.
The Anglican Church is just one of a number of churches which have spoken up on the issue of marriage in the lead-up to the introduction of the bill on Monday.
Others have included the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference which last week published a pastoral letter reaffirming marriage as being the union of a man and a woman.
“Ministers of religion recognised by a church or other religious body must have the right to refuse to solemnise a marriage if in doing so that would contravene his or her religious beliefs or the religious briefs of the church or other religious body.”– Anglican Primate Philip Freier in a letter to Prime Minister Tony Abbott |
In an accompanying statement, Archbishop Anthony Fisher, chair of the Bishops Commission for Family, Youth and Life, said children have a right to grow up with their natural mother and father where possible and noted that if the civil law ceases to define marriage “as traditionally understood”, it would be a “serious injustice and undermine that common good for which the civil law exists”.
The NSW Council of Churches also released a statement last week that said changing the meaning of marriage would be a “vast, risky social experiment”.
“Children have the right to know and be cared for by their natural parents,” said the council’s president, Rev Dr Ross Clifford.
Mr Iles, meanwhile, said to Sight that it is not inevitable that same-sex marriage will be legalised in Australia thanks in part to the fact that the country was in “a bit of a unique position” of having had other countries going ahead with same-sex marriage legislation, such as the US, UK, Canada, New Zealand, and, most recently, Ireland, and encountering some of the issues the ACL has flagged as concerns.
“And interestingly enough, the consequences that we’ve been saying are going to come about, are coming about and we have a very powerful way of being able to say ‘Look, This isn’t all academic…”
Along with protections for clergy, other key concerns raised by groups like the ACL is how changing the definition of marriage will alter the definition of family. They believe that a redefinition of marriage will lead to increased demand for surrogacy and a push to legalise commercial surrogacy,
Mr Iles said the issue of same-sex marriage is being used as a “bit of a political tool at the moment”.
“This has been thrown up as a bit of a political football and I do think that’s a very dangerous way to go about this kind of thing,” he said. “I mean if we are going to have the legislation at the very least we need to have a very clear debate about the ramifications and how we can protect people from the ramifications.”
Correction: A quote from Archbishop Philip Freier mistakenly had the word ‘just’ in place of ‘must’ – it has since been corrected.
