Lawyers petition against same-sex marriage plebiscite

Calls for the government to back down on plans to proceed with a plebiscite on same-sex marriage have received endorsement from four law firms, as the political debate on the public vote comes to a head.

Melissa Coade • 11 October 2016 • NewLaw

Lawyers petition against same-sex marriage plebiscite

Members of the Australian Labor Party caucus plan to discuss whether to block the plebiscite today, while Attorney-General George Brandis has ramped up efforts to plead with the opposition.

You’re out of free articles for this month

Username or Email

Password Forgot password?

Keep me signed in on this device.

First Name

Last Name

Mobile

Organisation Type

By becoming a member, I agree to receive information and promotional messages from Lawyers Weekly. I can opt out of these communications at any time. For more information, please visit our Privacy Statement.

Need help signing up? Visit the Help Centre.

During a doorstop interview on the weekend, the A-G told reporters that the government is committed to upholding the plebiscite as an “election promise”.

“If you believe in marriage equality as I do, and as I believe the overwhelming number of Labor members do, then this is the most immediate and the only feasible opportunity for marriage equality in the foreseeable future,” Senator Brandis said.

The Law Institute of Victoria (LIV) released a letter last month declaring its support for the removal of the legal restrictions that prevent the marital union of same-sex couples. The group does not believe a plebiscite is the most appropriate way to achieve this outcome.

In the letter, LIV president Steven Sapountsis argued the protection and promotion of rights must not be determined by “popular opinion”, which the process of a same-sex marriage plebiscite would legitimise.

VIEW ALL

“Equality before the law is a fundamental requirement of the rule of law, and not a matter of public opinion,” Mr Sapountsis said.

“Legally, historically and practically, protection and promotion of equal rights of and for minority groups in Australia, is a matter for Australian law and the Parliament. These rights cannot be subject to popular opinion at a point in time, and unless they are subject to a constitutional limitation, do not require a plebiscite or a referendum to be changed or enforced,” he said.

The LIV letter also supported the Law Council of Australia’s policy position on the issue.

Citing the view of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Mr Sapountsis reiterated that a public vote is an inappropriate process to redress what is effectively discrimination under the law. In his view, the fairest way to proceed is by reforming marriage legislation through Parliament.

“The Australian Human Rights Commission has noted that public votes are not an appropriate instrument by which to resolve issues of fundamental rights.”

“Parliament has the power to legislate for marriage equality under section 51(xxi) of the Commonwealth Constitution, and we encourage you to pursue that course rather than proceed to an ineffectual plebiscite,” Mr Sapountsis said.

Baker & McKenzie, Marque Lawyers, Maurice Blackburn and Squire Patton Boggs have also publicly endorsed the letter.

A statement released by Bakers on behalf of the bloc said there is no justification for the “social dislocation” a plebiscite will cause.

“It is hoped that other members of the legal profession will make the same open commitment to ending this form of discrimination, not just by signing the marriage equality letter but by publicly requesting that the government reconsider its position,” the statement read.

Bakers recently hosted a panel talk about the most respectful way to engage public dialogue on the issue, while Maurice Blackburn has offered its pro bono services to any members of the LGBTI community who experience vilification as the debate heats up.

Michael Tuesday, 11 October 2016

The issue of children is totally separate to the issue of same sex marriage, and the attempt to conflate the issues is just a desperate attempt to divert attention away from the core issue here, being whether the love between a same sex couple is equal to and worthy of the same legal recognition under the law as heterosexual couples.

On the issue of children, my mother grew up raised just by her grandmother (after her father had passed away). Does that make her upbringing any less than that of someone with both a mother and father present? Surely the most important thing for a child is to grow up in a loving household where they are supported and nurtured - and that ability to provide a happy home life has nothing to do with whether the parents are a male/female couple and everything to do with whether they are good people who can raise a child in a loving home environment.

As to the argument about "freedom of religion", people are free to believe whatever they wish, provided it does not infringe upon the rights of others in society to be treated equally under the law. Additionally, many religions nowadays (e.g., look at the Uniting Church for instance) do not adhere to archaic notions of masculinity and femininity, e.g. that a woman is a lesser form of life who is forever to "honour and obey" her husband, unable to hold property rights, and unable to hold public office or virtually any other job in society for that matter. Marriage has come along way since then, and in this day and age to prevent same sex couples who are in love and committed to each other to have equal marriage rights under the law is cruel and dismissive of the legitimacy of their relationship.

0
Anonymous Tuesday, 11 October 2016

What about the rights of children to have both a father and a mother?

0
Geoff Tuesday, 11 October 2016

What about freedom of religion and the rights of individuals not to be coerced into participating in gay weddings if it is against their conscience or religion to do so?

0
- Curious Wednesday, 12 October 2016
  
  I'd be interested in any passage in any religious text that declares it a sin to participate in a gay wedding ... I assume as not a part of the wedding couple. Can you enlighten me?
  
  0
Michael Tuesday, 11 October 2016

Peter, how would you like a popular vote on whether you ought to be treated as an equal human being under the law?

0
Peter Tuesday, 11 October 2016

The major parties both have Catholic MP's that will not accept gay marriage. In order to convince them to support it some of these will only do so if the public vote for it. Just let the Plebiscite vote go ahead. What are all the lefties / media scared of?

0