Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Reassuring Fr Frank Brennan about same sex marriage

By Luke Beck - posted Wednesday, 19 August 2015


In a recent contribution to the ABC Religion and Ethics portal, the Jesuit priest and law professor Father Frank Brennan indicated that he would support legal recognition of same-sex marriage if he received four assurances. Those assurances are:

  • The assurance that religious groups could continue to order their religious and church affairs consistent with their teaching on marriage.
  • The assurance that adoption authorities could always make decisions in the best interests of the child.
  • The assurance that state authorised/funded assisted reproduction services would not be expanded to allow the creation of a child without just one known biological mother and just one known biological father.
  • The assurance that those who had religious objections to same-sex marriage would not be required by law to violate their own consciences in the performance of professional or artistic services (as distinct from the simple sale of goods or provision of other services) when that performance is usually enhanced by the person believing in the relationship that is being celebrated or sustained.

In this post, as a constitutional law academic and supporter of marriage equality, I want to respond to Father Brennan's requests.

Advertisement

The assurance that religious groups could continue to order their religious and church affairs consistent with their teaching on marriage.

Put simply, the Federal Parliament has no power to legislate in respect of how religious groups order their religious and church affairs. Section 116 of the Constitution says: 'The Commonwealth shall not make any law … for prohibiting the free exercise of religion'.

If it is contrary to Catholic teaching for persons in same sex relationships to receive the sacrament, then federal law cannot force the Catholic Church to give the sacrament to those persons. If it is contrary to Catholic teaching for persons in same sex relationships to participate in parish committees, then federal law cannot force the Church to allow such persons to participate.

With common sense exceptions (such as requirements to comply with zoning laws, building safety codes and anti-money laundering laws), religious groups can order their internal religious affairs as they see fit.

Father Brennan can be assured that religious groups could continue to order their religious and church affairs consistent with their teaching on marriage if Australia legalised same sex marriage.

The assurance that adoption authorities could always make decisions in the best interests of the child

Advertisement

The rules governing adoption are a matter of State law rather than federal law. The rules vary from State to State. However, adoption has nothing to do with same sex marriage. In some States, unmarried same sex couples may adopt a child. If same sex marriage is recognised, then in those States married same sex couples would be able to adopt a child.

Issues relating to adoption by LGBTI individuals and couples were recently canvassed in the Australian Human Rights Commission's Resilient Individuals: Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Rights report.

Father Brennan seems to suggest that religious beliefs about the propriety of various human relationships are relevant to what is in the best interests of a child. Just because a particular religious group happens to believe that, other things being equal, being raised by a same sex couple is not in the best interests of a child does not mean that, as a matter of fact, being raised by a same sex couple is not the best interests of a child.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

21 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Luke Beck lectures in the School of Law at the University of Western Sydney.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 21 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy