Same Sex marriage

neilfoster

Is Same Sex Marriage a “Human Right”?

The question posed by the title of this post is simply this: is it a denial of a fundamental human right, for a legal system not to extend the category of marriage to include marriage between parties of the same sex?

The question was posed in a stark way by recent reported comments of the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Prof Gillian Triggs. Prof Triggs, for whom I have great respect as a scholar and academic, was delivering the annual Sir Anthony Mason Lecture at Melbourne Law School on 4 August, 2016. She strongly criticised a lack of commitment to human rights in recent decisions of the High Court of Australia, and the Commonwealth Government. In a short paragraph near the end of her address, she also said the following:

A recent example of the failure of Parliament to protect fundamental rights is the decision to hold a plebiscite on marriage equality.  Why do we hold an expensive, potentially divisive compulsory but non–binding national vote on the right to equality before the law.. a long recognized common law principle? The US Supreme court decision last year on marriage equality in Obergefel is yet another reminder of the limited role of the Australian High Court that has no power to interpret and apply a Bill of Rights.

The implication of this statement is that “marriage equality” (by which is meant “recognition of same sex marriage”) is simply an “equality” right which should be uncontroversial. Indeed, there is a suggestion that recognition of same sex marriage is really a right that flows obviously from Australia’s international human rights obligations, such as our accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Prof Triggs has been previously reported as telling a Parliamentary inquiry that there is a “right to marriage equality”.

In a later defence of this position in an opinion piece, “Genuine marriage equality is more than overdue in Australia” (Sydney Morning Herald, 28 Jan, 2016) Prof Triggs said:

Under article 26 of the  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights  all people “are equal before the law and entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law”. The Australian Human Rights Commission considers that this principle of equality means that civil marriage should be available, without discrimination, to all couples, regardless of sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.

Yet the same piece frankly points out that international human rights bodies do not all agree with this assessment:

It remains true that international human rights law does not mandate recognition of marriage between same sex partners. Rather, the principle of equality under the ICCPR is considered by the UN Human Rights Committee to neither prevent recognition of same sex marriage nor to impose a positive obligation on states to do so.

In this post I want to briefly note the UN Human Rights Committee decision referred to here, and some decisions of another important tribunal, the European Court of Human Rights, which make it clear that at the moment it is not true to say that same sex marriage (whether under the guide of “marriage equality” or more accurate terminology) is a recognised “human right”. I will comment briefly on the terminology of “equality” before noting the relevant decisions.

Equality and Same Sex Marriage

As catchy and heart-warming as the phrase “marriage equality” is, it has to be said that it is fundamentally misleading in its description of the change of marriage laws needed to extend the institution of marriage to same sex couples.

I have commented on this matter previously: “Opposing same-sex marriage is not discrimination” (2011). But let me sum up briefly here. While a call for “equality” is right where people are being denied access to goods or rights on the basis of irrelevant characteristics, it is simply misleading when the matters to which access is demanded are defined in ways which require persons to be differentiated from each other. To use an example given in my previous paper, if I claim to be entitled to the status of “employee of Microsoft”, and hence the right to receive a salary from the company, then I need to fulfil the prerequisites of such a status. Unless I have a contract of employment with the company, and carry out the work I have been contracted to do, I have no right to complain of a lack of “employment equality” when I don’t receive a salary from Bill Gates.

So the question that must always be addressed when a claim for “equality” is made, is – “equality” in what respects? for what purposes? In the area of marriage, the question is, is denying two people of the same sex the right to enter the legal relationship, irrational because it discriminates on an irrelevant ground? What is marriage for? And the answer that communities have offered for millennia, is that “marriage” is an institution with certain core meanings. At its core, it is a social institution designed to facilitate the care of children who are born of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and to encourage both to be committed to the children and to each other.

Of course there are differing conceptions of marriage in modern Western societies. Marriage has always had the additional blessing of providing a place of care and support and fulfilment for the parties. In recent decades the role of marriage as providing mainly for the emotional and sexual needs of the parties to the marriage has come to the fore. But as many have pointed out, if marriage is centrally and primarily concerned with the preferences of two consenting adults, why does the legal system now need to be involved at all? The law has always regulated and recognised marriage primarily in the interests of children and families.

The UN & the ICCPR

This role of marriage can be seen in the provisions of the main UN document on the topic of “human rights”, the ICCPR, in article 23, which provides that:

(1) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

(2) The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognised. (emphases added)

Notice that art 23(2), which deals with the “right to marry”, does so in context of an article which is about the “family”, and the right to marry is inextricably linked with the right to “found a family”. And the fact that the bearers of that right are identified as “men and women” leads naturally to the assumption that this article concerns the usual form that marriage has taken throughout human history, the union of a man and a woman who will raise the children of their sexual union together.

It should not be surprising, then, that when the UN Human Rights Committee was asked to offer an opinion as to whether there was a “right to marry” which extended to same sex couples, in Joslin v New Zealand (Human Rights Committee, Views: Communication No 902/1999, 75th sess, UN Doc CCPR/C/75/D/902/1999; 17 July 2002) the Committee said there was not. After considering the arguments of the parties in detail, the Committee ruled that there was no issue of “discrimination” under art 26 of the Convention. They said:

8.2 The authors’ essential claim is that the Covenant obligates States parties to confer upon homosexual couples the capacity to marry and that by denying the authors this capacity the State party violates their rights under articles 16, 17, 23, paragraphs 1 and 2, and 26 of the Covenant. The Committee notes that article 23, paragraph 2, of the Covenant expressly addresses the issue of the right to marry.

Given the existence of a specific provision in the Covenant on the right to marriage,
any claim that this right has been violated must be considered in the light of this provision. Article 23, paragraph 2, of the Covenant is the only substantive provision in the Covenant which defines a right by using the term “men and women”, rather than “every human being”, “everyone” and “all persons”. Use of the term “men and women”, rather than the general terms used elsewhere in Part III of the Covenant, has been consistently and uniformly understood as indicating that the treaty obligation of States parties stemming from article 23, paragraph 2, of the Covenant is to recognize as marriage only the union between a man and a woman wishing to marry each other. (emphasis added)

The UNHRC is by no means a “conservative” body. It has made a number of controversial decisions, extending discrimination rights on the basis of “sex” to the grounds of “sexual orientation”, for example. But on this issue it was quite clear- the ICCPR did not of itself make a failure to recognise same sex marriage a breach of human rights.

Of course the decision in Joslyn has its critics. In a detailed academic piece, “Marriage: A Human Right for All?” (2015) 36 Sydney Law Review 643 the authors Gerber, Tay & Sifris argue that the decision was wrong, and that in any event that the ICCPR is a “living instrument that should be interpreted and applied in light of present circumstances”, so that it would be decided differently today. Prof Triggs in her 2016 opinion piece, noted above, argues that “the law is evolving to accept marriage equality”. Different views can be offered on this point, of course. But one thing seems clear- it is not currently right to say that same sex marriage is a “human right” recognised by the international community.

The European Court of Human Rights

The situation is even clearer when decisions of the European Court of Human Rights are taken into account. The European Convention on Human Rights replicates many provisions of the ICCPR, one of which is art 12:

“Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.”

In Schalk and Kopf v Austria (ECHR, App 30141/04; 24 June 2010) the Court ruled that the Convention did not require States party to introduce a system of same sex marriage. The Court also referred to the use of the phrase “men and women” as supporting the traditional view of marriage, and also said that (at the time of its decision) there was no “consensus” among European nations as to whether same sex marriage should be recognised. It concluded:

63. In conclusion, the Court finds that Article 12 of the Convention does not impose an obligation on the respondent Government to grant a same-sex couple such as the applicants access to marriage.

Since then three other decisions of the Court have reaffirmed its earlier decision that the European Convention does not contain a “right to same sex marriage”: Hämäläinen v. Finland (application no. 37359/09; 16 July 2014); Oliari and Others v. Italy (application no. 18766/11 and 36030/11); and Chapin and Charpentier v. France (application no. 40183/07; 9 June 2016).

Conclusion

The debate about whether or not Australia should extend the institution of marriage to include same sex couples will of course continue. But the point being made here is simple: it is misleading to speak as if this change were simply a matter of implementing an internationally recognised “human right”. There is no such human right. The matter must be resolved by a careful consideration of the nature of the institution of marriage and the implications of change. It cannot be resolved simply by an appeal to “equality” or “human rights”.

neilfoster

Free speech and the plebiscite (part 2)

An article in today’s press, “Call to suspend hate laws ‘disgraceful’: Gillian Triggs” reports comments of the Australian Human Rights Commission President Gillian Triggs on proposals to protect free speech in the same sex marriage plebiscite, which I commented on yesterday. As a number of the points made in today’s article were not dealt with in yesterday’s blog, I thought it might be helpful to provide a response. Readers should of course read the previous post first, to get the proper context.

Continue reading

neilfoster

Protecting free speech in the Same Sex Marriage Plebiscite debate

An article in the The Guardian today, “Override hate speech laws to allow marriage equality debate, urges Christian lobby” reports that Lyle Shelton, managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby, has made proposals urging greater protection of free speech for those opposed to the introduction of same sex marriage in the forthcoming Australian plebiscite on the topic.

Of course, the reader will see that the Guardian headline and my summary of the proposals seem quite different. In its support for same sex marriage, the Guardian and those it quotes describe the ACL proposals as follows: the ACL wants to “permanently override anti-discrimination laws”; the ACL is said to need to justify why it wants to “breach anti-hate laws”; the laws in question are designed to “protect Australians from acts of hatred, vilification and incitement”; the ACL has an “intention to run an ugly and discriminatory campaign against marriage equality”.

I think the Guardian has slanted the ACL views unfairly. (Even more unfairly, the Sydney Morning Herald report on the story features a cartoon of an ACL representative complaining that they can’t be expected to make their case “without expressing hatred and bigotry”.) Let me suggest reasons why the ACL proposal, so far as can be ascertained from these press reports, sounds limited, moderate and sensible. 

Continue reading

neilfoster

Heartbreak, Humiliation and a Death Certificate

“Heartbreak and humiliation” were the opening words of the current affairs show “The 7:30 Report” on the national public broadcaster, the ABC, on Thursday Friday 21, 2016. The story? The tragic accidental death of David Bulmer-Rizzi, one member of a UK same sex couple who were visiting the country.The tragedy was compounded, the report said, by the fact that the South Australian authorities were proposing to issue a death certificate which stated that the deceased was “never married”. But the couple had entered into a same sex marriage under UK law.

The grief of the survivor, Marco Bulmer-Rizzi, and the father of the deceased man, were evident in the show. To lose a loved one in such circumstances is a terrible thing. But as there has already been substantial press coverage of the case, being used for the purpose of supporting legal change in Australia, it seems worthwhile to clarify the purely legal situation. 

Continue reading

neilfoster

Wedding Venue Owners Fined for Declining Same Sex Wedding

In the latest in what seems like a long series of religious freedom cases involving Christian small business owners in the “wedding industry”, a New York couple, the Giffords, have been fined $13,000 for declining to make their venue available for a same sex wedding ceremony, and a New York State appeal court has now upheld the verdict: see Gifford v McCarthy (NY Sup Ct Appellate Divn, 3rd Dept; 14 Jan 2016; matter no 520410) (the case is also referred to as Gifford v Erwin).

Facts of the case

The Giffords run Liberty Farm in Schaghticoke, Rensselaer County. A large barn has been used as a venue for weddings, where they provide all the services needed except a celebrant. As reported by the Gifford’s lawyers, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF):

On Sept. 25, 2012, Melisa McCarthy called Cynthia, inquiring about the use of the farm for her upcoming same-sex ceremony. Because of her Christian faith’s teachings on marriage, Cynthia politely made it clear to McCarthy that she and her husband don’t host and coordinate same-sex ceremonies but left open the invitation to visit the farm to consider it as a potential reception site. Instead, McCarthy and her partner filed a complaint with the Division of Human Rights. After the agency ruled that the Giffords were guilty of “sexual orientation discrimination,” it fined them $10,000 plus $3,000 in damages and ordered them to implement re-education training classes designed to contradict the couple’s religious beliefs about marriage.

A New York statute, the Human Rights Law, declares it to be an “unlawful discriminatory practice” for any “owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement, because of the . . . sexual orientation . . . of any person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from or deny to such person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof” (Executive Law § 296 [2] [a]).

Was the booking declined on the basis of sexual orientation?

The Giffords argued that they had not declined the booking “because of the sexual orientation” of the parties, but because as Christians they could not support the celebration of a same sex “marriage”, believing it to be contrary to God’s word in the Bible. In other words, their refusal was on the basis of the message of celebration that would be conveyed by the event, in which they would have to be intimately involved as hosts of the venue.

The ADF draw a helpful analogy to a different set of facts. As they note, the

law does not require the Giffords to coordinate or host every event that a person…requests. For example, if the infamous Westboro Baptist group asked the Giffords to host an event that would express their false message that God hates people in same-sex relationships, the Giffords would not be discriminating based on religion if they declined the event because they did not want to host expression that violates their belief that God loves everyone…. The statute does not require that they treat all messages equal.

Note that this case, like others of its nature, is not about a right to decline to provide services to gay people because of some form of unreasoned hatred. Instead, the question of whether a service provider whose work is essentially artistic and creative, should be required to use their skills to provide support for, and celebration of, a message that they find clashes with their deep religious commitments.

But the court rejected this argument. Peters PJ, with whom the other judges concurred, said (at pp 6-7):

Such attempts to distinguish between a protected status and conduct closely correlated with that status have been soundly rejected (see Christian Legal Soc. Chapter of Univ. of Cal., Hastings College of the Law v Martinez, 561 US 661, 689 [2010]; Lawrence v Texas, 539 US 558, 575 [2003]; Bob Jones Univ. v United States, 461 US 574, 605 [1983]). The act of entering into a same-sex marriage is “conduct that is inextricably tied to sexual orientation” and, for purposes of the Human Rights Law, we hold that there is “no basis for distinguishing between discrimination based on sexual orientation and discrimination based on someone’s conduct of publicly committing to a person of the same sex” (Elane Photography, LLC v Willock, 309 P3d 53, 62 [Sup Ct NM 2013], cert denied ___ US ___, 134 S Ct 1787 [2014]; accord Craig v Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., ___ P3d ___, ___, 2015 WL 4760453, *6, 2015 Colo App LEXIS 1217, *15-18 [2015]). Accordingly, petitioners discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation when they refused to host the McCarthys’ wedding on the premises. (emphasis added)

Readers of past blog posts here will recall some of these cases. In a general post on the “wedding industry” cases I mentioned the Elane Photography decision cited above, which was one of the first where a State Supreme Court upheld a ruling that a Christian wedding business (there a photographer) was guilty of sexual orientation discrimination by declining to offer their services to a same sex wedding. In that post I mentioned the decision in State of Washington v Arlene’s Flowers Inc, Ingersoll & Freed v Arlene’s Flowers Inc (Ekstrom J, Nos 13-2-00871-5, 13-2-00953-3; 18 Feb 2015), involving a florist. The Masterpiece Cakeshop decision noted above involved refusal to create a wedding cake celebrating a same sex marriage, as did the decision in  Re Klein dba Sweetcakes by Melissa and anor (Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries, State of Oregon; Case Nos 44-14, 45-14; 21 April 2015) mentioned in this post. Outside the US, in Northern Ireland the Ashers Bakery case mentioned in this post is still before the courts- an appeal is to be heard from February 3.

A common theme in all these decisions is the view that a decision not to provide artistic and creative support for a same sex wedding must amount to discrimination against the persons involved on the basis of their sexual orientation. This is a view which I have suggested is wrong, and in a previous post about an Australian decision, “Sexual orientation and sexual behaviour: can they be distinguished?” I noted that there is at least one court ruling that supports my view. In Bunning v Centacare[2015] FCCA 280 (11 February 2015) the judge commented at para [39] that

“sexual orientation”, as the term is used in s. 4 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), covers only that which it expressly covers, i.e., the state of being. It does not cover behaviours.

I have also noted previously one US decision recognising the difference, in  Hands on Originals, Inc v Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission (Fayette Circuit Court, Civil Branch, 3rd Div, Ky; Civil Action No 14-CI-04474; James D Ishmael Jr, J; 27 April 2015), where a T-shirt printer escaped liability for declining to print a shirt with a message supporting “gay pride”.

The forthcoming Ashers Bakery case may provide the best opportunity for a superior court to clearly distinguish between support for a “message” and discrimination against a person themselves; the cake in that case was not going to be used at a wedding, but simply as a political statement, and may provide a good chance for the appeal court to stress the distinction between these things.

A religious freedom defence?

To return to the Gifford decision, having found the act of declining to offer their premises amounted to sexual orientation discrimination, the court went on to consider whether the Giffords, whose reason for not wanting to make the premises available related to their religious commitments about the nature of marriage, could rely on a defence based on religious freedom.

Unfortunately the discussion of this point followed the pattern familiar from most of the previous decisions. A claim that the discrimination law amounted to a breach of the Gifford’s “free exercise of religion” guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, was rejected on the basis of the currently accepted Supreme Court orthodoxy of Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v Smith, 494 US 872, 879 (1990), holding that:

a generally applicable and otherwise valid enactment, which is not intended to regulate religious conduct or beliefs but which may incidentally burden the free exercise of religion, is not deemed to violate the First Amendment (quoted at p 8 of Gifford)

The local New York version of “free exercise” was held to require a “balancing” of interests, and given the “strong” protection against discrimination under NY law, the court found that the interests of the Giffords were not strong enough. They retained the right to “believe” what they will! A generous concession, but not of course what religious freedom calls for. “SDHR’s determination does not require them to participate in the marriage of a same-sex couple”, Peters PJ said; though since their normal practice was to be heavily involved in all aspects of the ceremony and reception except for the actual celebration, her Honour does not quite explain how this was supposed to work.

A free speech defence?

The court also briefly addressed a “free speech” argument derived from the other limb of the First Amendment, the Giffords having argued that compelling them to host and organise a same sex wedding required them to impliedly assert their support for the institution. As the court summarised their point (at p 10):

petitioners maintain that wedding ceremonies are “inherently expressive event[s]” and that, by hosting a same-sex ceremony on the farm, the Giffords would effectively be communicating and endorsing messages about marriage that are antithetical to their religious views on the issue.

An argument I think that has a lot of weight. Clearly the very point of a wedding ceremony is the “celebration” (in the broad sense) of the relationship by the guests. But according to Peter PJ (at pp 10-11):

reasonable observers would not perceive the Giffords’ provision of a venue and services for a same-sex wedding ceremony as an endorsement of same-sex marriage…the conduct allegedly compelled is not sufficiently expressive so as to trigger First Amendment protections.

What “reasonable observers” would perceive does not seem to have been the subject of evidence; the court presumably takes “judicial notice” of the perceptions of “reasonable” members of the New York public in the relevant part of the State.

How might the matter be decided in Australia?

Interestingly there have been no reported cases of this sort arising in Australia yet. In theory such a case might be brought. There are laws at both State and Federal levels prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in provision of services, and the balancing provisions explicitly recognising religious freedom interests are mostly confined to “religious organisations” such as churches and church schools, and do not directly extend to believers conducting a small business generally.

In fact there is one major Australian decision dealing with a somewhat related issue, the decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in Christian Youth Camps Limited v Cobaw Community Health Services Limited [2014] VSCA 75 discussed here and in papers linked from that post. While that case involved the provision of camping services rather than wedding services, there are a number of similarities: the event in question was clearly conveying a message contrary to the religious beliefs of the business owner (the camp was avowedly about “normalising” homosexual activity), and the business owner was said (by the court) not to be a religious organisation. Sadly the same logic used in many of the US decisions noted above was adopted by the majority of the court: refusal of the booking on the basis of support for homosexuality was held to amount to discrimination against the persons involved. There was not even a plausible religious freedom argument involved, as in Australia the protection of s 116 of the Constitution only applies to Federal laws, not to State laws; and at the relevant time the Victorian Charter of Rights which includes at least a nominal religious freedom right was not in force.

Given the increased recognition in recent years of an implied “freedom of political speech” in the Commonwealth Constitution, it is possible that free speech arguments might be made. One could argue, for example, that the question of expressing support, or not, for the institution of same sex marriage is very much a hot “political” topic in Australia at the moment, and that a law which imposed expression of a particular view on the matter contravened the Constitutional prohibition on impairment of free speech on such matters. However, this is so far an untested area in Australia.

For reasons canvassed in my previous papers I believe the Cobaw decision was deeply flawed; unfortunately the High Court of Australia declined to consider its correctness when invited to do so. In my view if a “wedding industry” case were to arise in Australia the principles in Cobaw ought to be reconsidered, and the important value of religious freedom given much more weight than it has been so far, either in Australia or the United States.

neilfoster

First they came for the Catholics…

The proposed action for sexual orientation vilification against a Roman Catholic bishop for teaching what the Roman Catholic church believes about marriage, which I noted at an early stage in a previous post, is now becoming broader.

I have an opinion piece today on the issues in the online version of Eternity, “Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commission finds all Catholic Bishops might have a “case to answer”” (Nov 13, 2015). I had originally prepared these comments based on previous reports that the anti-discrimination claim was being made simply against Archbishop Julian Porteus, from Hobart, but I have now added a few additional remarks by way of introduction about the announcement today that the action is apparently now being taken against other Roman Catholic bishops around Australia. I encourage readers to click on the link to the Eternity article before reading the rest of this blog post.

For those who are interested in the legal background to whether a discrimination claim under one Australian State’s law can be enforced against people in another State, see Burns v Gaynor [2015] NSWCATAD 211 (14 Oct 2015), a case which raised related issues (in that it dealt with alleged “homosexual vilification” of a person who had not been named but was making a claim simply as someone of a homosexual orientation). There the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal held that a person who posted material on a computer in Queensland could not be held liable for a “public act” under NSW discrimination law. Similar logic would suggest that the Tasmanian law is intended to refer to conduct engaged in, in Tasmania, rather than outside that jurisdiction.

Continue reading

neilfoster

Legal rights of same sex couples and married couples: an “urban myth”?

A recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald , “It’s an urban myth that same-sex couples and married heterosexuals have equal legal rights” (Nov 8, 2015; Tracey Spicer) suggests that there are large gaps between the legal rights of same sex couples and those of married couple. It reports a sad sequence of events, where one member of a same sex couple committed suicide, and in the aftermath the funeral took place at the directions of the deceased person’s parents, rather than as their partner wished. The article goes on to use this set of events as an argument for recognition of same sex marriage.

The case used in the article, however, seems on closer investigation not to make this point. The claim that equality of legal relationships is an “urban myth” proves to be wrong. The Tasmanian legislation relevant to this case means that this gentleman, as a member of a same sex couple, had prior rights as next of kin which should already have been recognised as superior to those of the deceased person’s mother, even without being formally “married”.

Tasmania has a “registration” system for relationships already. If the couple were committed to each other in a long term relationship they could, of course, already have been registered. Their situation was in that respect similar to that of a heterosexual “de facto” couple who chose not to marry. But even without registration the law would give the remaining partner important rights.

Under the Tasmanian Coroners Act 1995 s 3A a “spouse” has seniority of rights as a “next of kin” over a parent. Under that Act “spouse” means “other party to a significant relationship, within the meaning of the Relationships Act 2003″ (“RA 2003”). The RA 2003 s 4 says that a “significant relationship” can include a same sex couple, even if their relationship is not “registered” (though of course registration makes it easier to prove.)

So, what happened in this case? We don’t know from this report, which seems more concerned to make a political point than to be precise about the facts (and note at the end of the article, that the reporter’s trip to Tasmania was partly sponsored by the lobby group “Australian Marriage Equality”.) It may be that the relevant police or officials weren’t aware of the law, or it may be that this “spouse” didn’t make the situation clear. Some official may have behaved badly. But that happens all the time, sadly. As far as the law is concerned, no change in the law is needed to have given this gentleman seniority in “next of kin” arrangements.

The truth is that to call equality of general rights between same sex couples and married couples a “myth” is to denigrate the hard work done by those lobbying for protections for same sex couples over many decades. All Australian jurisdictions over the last 20 years have amended their laws to provide equality of legislative rights to same sex couples in almost all areas. The Commonwealth Parliament alone enacted a suite of such changes to over 80 laws in the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws-General Law Reform) Act 2008 (Cth). There may be one or two minor areas where there is differential treatment in law, but this example from Tasmania does not seem to be one of them. It does not provide a convincing argument for changing the law of marriage.

neilfoster

Religious Freedom conference presentation- video available

It seems that our “Religious Freedom in a Multicultural World” went well. I certainly enjoyed the day and was very grateful for the top class speakers we had. For those who are interested, the video of my presentation on the day is now available. The paper which goes along with the talk can be downloaded here. It was entitled “How should religious marriage celebrants respond if same sex marriage is introduced in Australia?” Regular readers of this blog will notice that it combines some discussion from previous blog posts on the issue, but also adds some extra material setting the scene at the beginning.

neilfoster

Paper on churches withdrawing from marriage if same sex marriage is introduced

We had what seemed to be a very well-received conference on Religious Freedom in a Multicultural World on Friday; we hope to make audio and possibly some video available soon, which I will mention here. In the meantime, for those who are interested, the paper I presented is available here. I hasten to add that regular readers of this blog will experience, as the recently deceased Yogi Berra used to say, “deja vu all over again”, because much of the content was taken from some blog posts and interaction with my friend John McClean. But I have added some more material at the beginning setting the scene, and hopefully bringing it all together into one spot will be useful.

neilfoster

Religious Freedom in the Newcastle Herald

Today I had an opinion piece in the Newcastle Herald entitled “Free to live by one’s beliefs“. The issues raised here are among those to be discussed at the Religious Freedom in a Multicultural World conference to be held at Newcastle University this Friday September 25. If you would like to come, see the website here for details and a link to register. (By the way, if you are a pensioner or in receipt of Government assistance generally, you can register at the Student rate of $25 rather than the full rate!)

After the conference I will be posting the paper I am presenting on this blog, and I hope that the other talks will be recorded so we can share them more generally.