You have3 free articles left this month.
Register for a free account to access unlimited free content.
You have 3 free articles left this month.
Register for a free account to access unlimited free content.

Lawyers Weekly - legal news for Australian lawyers

Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
lawyers weekly logo

Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA

Goodbye job applications, hello dream career
Seize control of your career and design the future you deserve with LW career

LCA: Laws on same-sex marriage require ‘careful balance’

The Law Council of Australia has told a parliamentary inquiry that the exposure draft for new same-sex marriage laws must respect non-discrimination principles when weighed against freedom of religion protections.

user iconMelissa Coade 03 February 2017 NewLaw
LCA: Laws on same-sex marriage require ‘careful balance’
expand image

A careful balance should be the focus of any amendment to Commonwealth marriage laws, the Law Council of Australia (LCA) has told a parliamentary inquiry.

Speaking of a proposed bill to legalise same-sex marriage in Australia, the legal representative body appeared before a senate select committee in Melbourne last week.

LCA president Fiona McLeod SC said the group supports moves that would see Commonwealth marriage laws changed to lift discriminatory barriers facing same-sex couples.

Any amendments to federal legislation must be made carefully, to ensure that anti-discrimination principles are not eroded by the right to express religious beliefs, she suggested.

Ms McLeod added that there is international precedent in human rights law to support the view that freedom of religious expression should not override protections against discrimination.

“The freedom to express one’s religious beliefs must be carefully balanced where it intrudes upon other rights, such as the fundamental right to be free from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity,” Ms McLeod said.

“Under international case law, protections against discrimination have taken priority over freedom of religious expression in the provision of secular and commercial services,” she said.

The LCA’s submission concerning the need to carefully balance human rights principles specifically objected to an exemption listed in the proposed law.

The exposure draft bill includes a provision that allows ‘religious bodies and organisations’ to be exempt from making facilities, goods or services available for the purpose of solemnisation of a same-sex marriage. This exemption covers providers of photography and catering services.

“We believe that this draft provision, as with the draft exemption for civil celebrants, has no proper basis in human rights law and should be removed,” Ms McLeod said.

“This proposed exemption would erode fundamental principles of non-discrimination and represent a disproportionate extension of existing exemptions to discrimination laws for ‘religious bodies’ in defined and limited circumstances.”

The LCA put its recommendations to the parliamentary inquiry a few short weeks after the initial call for submissions.

A senate select committee invited comment on the Exposure Draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill in December last year. The due date for written submissions was set about one month later, in early January of this year.  

The LCA’s national human rights committee, the Queensland Law Society and the Law Institute of Victoria all contributed to the submissions.

Comments (4)
  • Avatar
    I am forced to support, via my taxes, the indefinite detention of people seeking asylum in extra-national island gulags, which has resulted in at least two deaths and incalculable harm. Where is my freedom to abstain from that? The liberty you allege is "threatened" by same sex marriage is a hysterical false construct. You will happily subordinate your "freedom" to any number of atrocities committed by the state, but you cannot accept that two people of the same gender who are in love should be able to enter a voluntary union of equal weight to those of their peers?

    Feckless hypocrites, the lot of you.
    0
  • Avatar
    I, for one, still value freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of association, freedom of religion and freedom of contract. Why should anyone in a free and democratic society, or elsewhere, be forced into supporting an activity which is against their conscience?
    0
    • Avatar
      Because those supporting SSM don't want tolerance, they want certain lifestyles to be celebrated.

      'Freedom for me but none for thee' is the catch-cry of the 'tolerant' left.
      0
    • Avatar
      And what about freedom from discrimination? It is a basic human right. The need for its protection was made very clear when in WWII a certain German party followed its conscience and murdered millions including homosexuals. Lines have to be drawn. Freedom has boundaries including freedom from discrimination. But if it is not OK to discriminate based on, for example, race neither should it be OK for sexuality, which is not a 'lifestyle' but an inherent characteristic.
      0
Avatar
Attach images by dragging & dropping or by selecting them.
The maximum file size for uploads is MB. Only files are allowed.
 
The maximum number of 3 allowed files to upload has been reached. If you want to upload more files you have to delete one of the existing uploaded files first.
The maximum number of 3 allowed files to upload has been reached. If you want to upload more files you have to delete one of the existing uploaded files first.
Posting as
You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member for free today!