Keeping balance between freedom of
IN the discussions around same-sex marriage, many topics have come up. One that is important to me as a practising Christian, a retired pastor and former authorised celebrant is the issue of freedom; both freedom to practise my religion and freedom of speech.
I see no threat posed to either of these by allowing people of the same sex to marry.
There are already a variety of safeguards in the Marriage Act and additional safeguards are included in the Exposure Draft of the revised law, which was released by the AttorneyGeneral, and in the private member’s Bill from Senator Dean Smith.
In the current Act, church celebrants are entitled to marry, or refuse to marry, any couple otherwise eligible under the Act. To perhaps state the obvious, Christian churches are not buildings but communities of people drawn together under the Lordship of Jesus and celebrating together key life events, one of which is marriage.
The Act permits the celebrant to solemnise marriage according to the rites of their church. Some celebrants see faith to be a key question for marriage candidates. They require a variety of faith statements and promises to be made by both couple and congregation and they may refuse to solemnise marriage for people not part of their denomination.
Some denominations will not marry a couple divorced from previous spouses. And in many cases the rites set for a denomination explicitly requires a couple to be male and female.
As a celebrant I was always concerned that a couple seeking a wedding in a church building not commit perjury on one of the most joyous days of their life. Fortunately the rites of my denomination back then were flexible enough to ensure this didn’t happen. Such flexibility is not always the case.
The Act permits the freedom of marriage practice to the churches. Under the current Act, a celebrant can’t be constrained to solemnise a marriage in departure from the church’s marriage service. There is no suggestion that any of these freedoms will be removed if marriage equality is allowed. In some church rites, of course, there is great freedom, and a marriage equality act would enable such a free church to solemnise same-sex marriage. This would be by church choice and not external constraint.
So, under the provisions of the current Act and in line with the drafts we have before us, churches will retain the freedom to marry or not to marry according to their celebrants’ decisions and the governance of the rites of the church. Bishop Vincent Long in a recent and important pastoral letter notes that changes to the law of the land do not necessitate a change in the practice of the church. “Many years ago,” he wrote “divorce was legalised in Australia; but this change did not alter the law of the Church.”
In terms of ancillary businesses supporting wedding ceremonies, receptions and the like, there are already other legislated requirements for fair trading and fair delivery of services. In a multicultural and diverse society such as ours, courtesy, respect and generosity seem to me to be important in the way
Churches will retain the freedom to marry or not to marry, explains Ian Carmichael