Why is it important civil celebrants do not have a right to refuse to marry couples because of their personal conscience?

Rona Goold
Civil Celebrations Advocate

Because Australia needs to protect the rights of people of non-religious ethical beliefs as well as people with religious beliefs.

If "civil" celebrants can exercise their religious and personal conscience on matters on "civil" law then,  they are no longer "civil" celebrants

---

The Rule of Law
​
​Because if civil celebrants did not uphold civil law, then the law would be saying that all those authorised to implement the law, do not have to implement the law. (illogical eh?)

• Arbitrary application of the law on some people and not on others undermines a long held Australian value of a “Fair Go” and more importantly, the rule of law in a civilised multicultural democracy such as Australia.
• Would we accept this proposition if this was applied to our Police forces? That is, allowing different police personnel, by law, their religious beliefs or personal conscience to determine upon whom they would apply the law? Some people get arrested for a crime, others not for the same crime.

Note:  Dr Luke Beck, a constitutional law academic at Western Sydney University specialising in separation of church and state issues,  considers that exemptions  would be unconstitutional in his article: Why proposed same-sex marriage exemptions would be unconstitutional.

This is personal - We need confidence our family & friends will not be rejected

​Because there is no start or end to variety of religious and personal consciences of the over 8000 civil marriage celebrants,  if they have the same rights to refuse as religious celebrants on the grounds of "traditional" marriage? 
​
Will the civil celebrant refuse to marry - 

• couples who are infertile or over 60 years because they cannot have children? 
• couples of different religious faiths because they believe this is bad risk for long term marriage?
• couples from different racial or cultural groups because they believe this is bad risk for long term marriage? 
• couples where one or both the parties have been divorced and thus not committed to marriage “for life”?

A practical solution: If the sections of Senator Dean Smith's Bill that relate to civil celebrants are not amended, then current civil celebrants who have objections to same sex marriage will have 90 days to transfer into a Commonwealth religious celebrant category.  Only 3% of independent civil celebrants said their conscience or religion would force then to resign.

• Then all new civil celebrants will be required to uphold the law and marry same sex couples, and
• There would be clearly 2 groups of religious celebrants and 2 groups of civil celebrants.

Then public can have the confidence of choosing to be married by a religious minister who may reject them on a number of grounds and/ or being married by a civil celebrant because they meet the legal requirements to marry.

Anti-Discrimination laws protect all

​​Because this would mean changing Marriage law to remove discrimination, then allowing all those authorised to implement the law to discriminate against the people the law is designed to not discriminate against ..  and not just those who are LGBTIQ people.

• Australia's anti-discrimination laws do not cover all the ways a person can be discriminated against.
• However our laws aim to protect individuals from being unfairly  treated on the basis of their  • age • marital status • gender • disability • religion
• Independent marriage celebrants, like any other professional, can decline to provide a service on grounds other than these discriminatory ones.
  
  ​For example -  if the civil celebrant is not available for a variety of work, family and other reasons;  does not have the knowledge or skills to provide the type of ceremony being requested; is unwilling to meet the couple's additional requests such as being  being dressed up in a fancy costume or naked at the wedding, doing the wedding underwater, on a boat, or in a balloon; is unwilling to give discounts; use coarse or rude language etc.

Freedom of Choice

Because civil marriage celebrants are authorised to provide marriage services to the Australian public under CIVIL law 

• Australia's Commonwealth Civil Marriage Celebrant Program was a world first!
• The program gave secular couples and their families a dignified meaningful ceremony tailored to their own values and beliefs, as alternative to a church wedding (which could be very divisive where the couple came from differing faiths) and the Registry Offices (which offered a simple legal ceremony for only a small number of guests).
• With independent civil marriage celebrants, not tied to Public Service or Church rules, Australian couples could then marry at any time of day or night 365 years of the year at a place of their choice with a celebrant of their choice

​​​Under Senators Smith's Bill, there would be a clear choice - 2 groups of religious celebrants and 2 groups of civil celebrants from which couples may choose.

Respect for Religious/ Ethical Belief
​
​Because secular couples or couples with differing beliefs deserve legal respect for their ethical and spiritual beliefs just as couples with religious beliefs deserve respect.​

• Over 70% of all marriage celebrants in Australia are religious celebrants authorised under law from over 600 Recognised Religions  and non-aligned religious organisations  to conduct marriages on behalf of the Australian government.
• So it is clear that religious tolerance is currently very generously practised in Australia.
• This compares with about 25% of marriage celebrants being independent civil celebrants and only 1%  state officers doing civil marriages.
• Allowing all marriage celebrants to have religious or conscientious objections means NO marriage celebrants required to uphold the legal civil definition of marriage for those 60+% of Australians who registered YES to a  change in the legal definition of marriage.

​Dr Luke Beck, as mentioned above, also explains why he considers Marriage ‘inequality’ is a threat to religious freedom – and it is probably unconstitutional

Equal Access under Law

​Because if all independent civil celebrants can refuse, but not the state officers (local courts and registry staff offering civil marriages), then only 1%​ of  all those authorised to implement the law have to implement the law

• Only 296 people in the nation to uphold civil law for the 80,000 or so couples who choose to be married in civil weddings.​

NOTE: See the breakdown of State Officers in these notes to the ICCA submission.

Fairness 
​
Because if people of religious faith in Australia have the right to have access to services who will respect their beliefs then Australians of different ethical and/or spiritual beliefs should have the same protections under law.

• Governments are responsible to make laws to serve the common good for all people who live in their country, not suit every individual possible.

Requiring civil celebrants to not discriminate is upholding Australian Values 

• True Marriage Equality upholds  what most of us believe are traditional Australian values 

Fairness, Equality, Non-Discrimination, Rule of Law, Tolerance,
Respect, Freedom of Choice, Freedom of Religion/ Ethical Belief
= A FAIR GO