The Right to Say " No " !

It seems inevitable that eventually our politicians will cave in to world opinion and "Same Sex Marriage " will become a legal contract between people of the same gender in Australia. It seems that ultra conservative thinking politicians in the New South Wales parliament are not waiting for that issue to come to a vote in their attempt to shield marriage celebrants from the wrath of anti-discrimination laws if they refuse to perform these ceremonies on religious grounds.

At issue is whether this refusal should be extended to new marriage celebrants if the Federal parliament makes the union legal ?   At present, many same sex couples celebrate their coming together as a couple in every way except the legal formality and the state has granted celebrants the right to refuse to conduct such civil ceremonies.

Supporters of same sex marriage see it differently. Marriage celebrants are people who hold a license issued by the state and in many ways that makes them public servants.   They are allowed to make a charge, but just as any government employee in a clerical position can not refuse to issue a marriage license on moral grounds it is hard to see where marriage celebrants should be any different.

This is an issue that is likely to throw the spotlight on marriage rules within the religious community. Attitudes vary widely in the thinking of individual religions and often between individual priests. It is not uncommon for marriage to be refused between couples from across the religious divide and in some cases acceptance rests on an undertaking that any children of the marriage will be brought up following the religion of the celebrant.

This form of schism can be devastating in country area.  Sometimes the parents of one of the partners oppose the union and prevail on the priest to refuse.  Many a young couple have been forced to abandon a church marriage in company with their many friends and instead replace that with the austerity of a civil ceremony performed by a bored clerk in the local town hall.

You can be certain that those churches opposed to same sex marriage on moral grounds will refuse to perform such unions, and that old perennial - the joining of divorcees in new marriages - will again become an issue in many congregations.   It seems that the divide between a religious ceremony and a civil ceremony is about to widen.

The whole purpose of providing marriage celebrants who were not ordained priests was to fill the gap between the bias and restrictions of church marriages and the austerity of what were called "Registry office " nuptials.  The state had a duty to provide the legality necessary to record an official union and suddenly it became fashionable to have that friendly celebrant take the necessary vows in a tranquil place of great beauty - such as on a beach or in a forest glade.  The number of church weddings has consequently steadily decreased.

The politicians pushing this issue would be wise to retreat.  Just as couples determined to have a church wedding usually find a hospitable priest ready to officiate, even if they have to change faiths to achieve that end, most civil ceremonies involve a celebrant picked by the couple for their enthusiasm and presentation in making the ceremony memorable.

Nothing would be more "deadly " than a wedding ceremony in which the person officiating was compelled to be there by law and was reciting the necessary words against their will.