The government should stop marrying people

Why should we leave marriage to "the church"? After all, there are many references in the bible to elders having more than one wife so what makes this author think that churches do marriages better? In the U.S, 51% of all marriages end in divorce and most of them start in churches...and a few in Elvis chapels in Las Vegas. I think what this author is suggesting, is that because some churches cannot or will not condone gay marriages, then we should all lose the privilege of being married by the government. I think the author has that backwards: how about the churches stop conducting marriages, and then maybe there wouldn't be so much bigotry and superiority surrounding marriage?

Thank you Rachel for this article and your sensible thoughts on this topic, a topic which is causing such anxiety and division in families, churches and friendship groups at this time in Australia.

Brilliant article! Thank you.

In the US recently a woman married her cat and another her favourite rose bush. Such is the significance of marriage that is not between a man and woman. It means nothing and the religions as you say, Rachel, should get on and practice their marriage rituals as they wish and leave the civil rituals to the state. Incidentally, the last census indicated that Australia has some way to go before it becomes a secular society/state.

According to Roman Catholic theology it is the two people getting married who actually perform the ceremony, not the priest, even though you would be forgiven for thinking it was him. In England - where our Law stems from - there was a stage where, for Christians, only marriages celebrated by a clergyman of the Established Church were recognised. Hence ancient recusant families like the Throckmortons had to hie themselves off to their local Anglican Church to get married. I'm not sure when secular marriage came in. I suspect the 19th Century. I have no problems with the current marriage laws, which will, obviously, change when SSM comes in. My concern is that religious denominations are not forced to go against their beliefs. The result of SSM coming in may be somewhat messy. I suspect the Anglicans (except Sydney, Armidale and North West Australia) will go the way of ECUSA, which will lead to the same sort of realignment as has happened in North America. The Anglican Communion is already in de facto schism. There is a phrase about 'living with diversity'. We need to get ready for that.

Tim: "we should all lose the privilege of being married by the government." I guess I never saw that so much as a privilege as a piece of admin, myself. Because I was raised Baha'i, our marriage ceremonies weren't recognised by the UK govt (where I was living at the time) so we had to go through the 'admin' registry office ceremony before we had what I considered our *real* marriage, which was the Baha'i ceremony. It mattered so little to me, I wore rollers in my hair and a scarf to the registry office ;) I've always thought it curious that I couldn't just sign the piece of paper to satisfy the government, why did I have to have a registry ceremony as well?

Thank you kindly Yve and James. John: "the last census indicated that Australia has some way to go before it becomes a secular society/state" well, there's a difference between a secular government in which no one confession of faith is given authority/preference, and secular in that the people in the society are not religious. I like the one but not the other ;)

Edward: "My concern is that religious denominations are not forced to go against their beliefs." I think that is what is spurring a lot of the sentiment behind the 'no' vote, not helped by the 'I won't bake cakes for gay marriages' stunts.

Absolutely right, Rachel.The current argument uses the word 'love' ad nauseam, but the State isn't interested in love, commitment or responsibility - and perhaps it shouldn't. Same sex marriage advocates are actually asking for the state to register same-sex unions, calling them marriage as other state-registered unions are termed. If only none of these state registered unions were called 'marriage'! None of them! People could still celebrate their love and commitment in the presence of friends and family, with or without a religious witness. Didn't Italy try this? What happened?

Purely as a matter of interest, some Churches when I was a youth interpreted the Pauline passage to also eliminate bachelors. (ie 1 wife also forbade 0 wives)

“This is all by way of saying that marriage is a product of the cultural attitudes and religious beliefs of different societies and groups of people. There will never be universal agreement over what constitutes a valid marriage or who should be allowed to marry or not.” But the common thread is that the child is acknowledged to be the offspring of an identified biological mother and an identified biological father, upon whom obligations on the child’s behalf are imposed. Otherwise, why would the pre-Islamic Arabs think it important to make a best approximation on the identity of a polyandrous father? To establish the interest of the child in having an identity by answering, on its behalf, its question, “From whom do I come?” Because so-called same-sex marriage falsifies the empirical facts of the provenance of a child, it is unequal to any of the forms and details of marriage mentioned by the author. The State has an interest in denying this falsification of provenance.

Religious people don't own the word "marriage", sorry. So when the govt is recognising such a commitment of two people, the word "marriage" is appropriate and should apply. Religious people saying "well if we can't control it, you shouldn't have marriage at all" is pretty on the nose, tbh.

Dear Rachel, I have wondered whether gay married couples will fill up our Divorce/Family Courts when they want to fight over the "Fridge and the cable bill

States and Churches don't marry people. Two people 'marry' each other. Plainly 'Marriages' were occurring long before there were Churches or States to take an interest in them. Otherwise where did the people come from who formed the States and Churches? Obviously problems arose, and States and Churches took steps, either to try to address them, or to further their own agendas, and to impose their authority. An updated consideration of all the factors involved needs to be made in order to produce satisfactory solutions to problems involved.

Excellent article Rachel except that what you refer to as 'civil registration' is already, by common usage and legislation called a 'marriage'. Perhaps what we need to do is to deal all religious celebrants out of the civil marriage process, as is the case in France for example, and leave all religions to do as they please.

Why doesn't our mainstream media publish articles like this? It cuts through a lot of the rubbish that is thrown around.

For Catholics and some other denominations marriage is both a sacrament and an administrative record. Perhaps when the dust settles - as it will - the Church should give all its attention to the Sacrament and let the State worry about the paper work.

When my religious education started in the 1940s and 50s, familiarity with the 10 commandments was not enough. Another bolt-on set called ominously the Commandments of the Church had to be recited as well. They may still exist for all I know. One of them was "To observe the laws of the Church regarding Marriage". Depending on the teacher, this could cover everything from outlawing contraception to (shock, horror) marrying "outside the church". This, and other deviations had the result that the parties were "not married in the sight of God". The corollary was that any sexual activity between them was sinful (again in the sight of God) and, for an added frisson, mortally so. SSM hadn't been thought of, of course, but you can bet the sight of God wouldn't have given it a tick either. When the civil law eventually changes to allow SSM, the Church will no doubt refuse to recognise it and tell the spouses that they are "not married in the sight of God" - as it has been telling those who re-marry after divorce, or who marry outside the church etc. for years. Changing the Marriage Act will make no difference whatever to the "laws of the Church regarding Marriage", so why are bishops (and Abbotts) concerned?

My take on the 'cake question', Rachel, is that those who would refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple would also, in the not so long ago, have refused to do so for a couple of colour. I know a real case of the first sort came up in the Southern USA recently and there was legal retribution. I was thinking more of someone like ++ Julian Porteous of Hobart being brought before the Tasmanian Human Rights Commission for distributing a pamphlet to parents of children at Catholic schools in his archdiocese on the Roman Catholic Church's teaching on marriage. The complainant - who ultimately withdrew the complaint - was, apparently, a transexual woman with a child at a Catholic school. I have no doubt that legal draftspeople will have real problems distinguishing between what I would consider 'real' and 'spurious' exemptions. I went to an Anglican school in Victoria and it was possible, on religious grounds, to ask that your son (it was a boys' school) be exempted from attending the mild, broadly Christian church services twice a week. On the other hand, I don't think a move by a parent to abolish religious services or instruction would get off the ground.

The big problem looming, as has already happened in that great cesspool of decaying Western civilisation, the USA, is that conscientious objectors who don't offer secular services such as photography, catering etc for same sex weddings will be vilified using the law and arguments supporting "civil rights" by the homosexual community with its organised big money, celebrity endorsement and, as in this country, Medical Association backing.

Thank you, Rachel. Delightfully clear piece. You're brilliant as usual. I'll take your tip and try out Judge Judy some time. Hugs xP

Brilliant article on the diversity and perversity of marriage and the nonsense of the state. Puts it all in perspective. Interesting that 25 USA states have no minimum age for girls to marry. Thanks Rachel

When my parents were married in the Netherlands after WW2, they had a civil marriage in the local mayoral building and then a Catholic marriage in the local church. The state was interested only in the civil marriage. I see no reason why that cannot be the case here in Australia. The civil ceremony would be available for everyone, including same sex couples, and would establish the legal relationship between the two people getting married which would then be the legal basis for divorce should that happen. The religious ceremony would be for those who wanted it. Solves the problem, as far as I can see.

I think, John Frawley, that intelligent people, such as you, need to be very careful before they think the sky will fall in post SSM's advent. I was interested that the High Court verified that the postal poll proposed by the government was legally fine. One of the claims made by those on the Left of this matter was that this was illegal and that parliament should decide, contrary to what happened in Ireland. I myself see no problem with a postal poll. There are people who choose to 'link' SSM marriage to a raft of 'progressive' neo-Trotskyite agendas such as 'gender theory'. Greg Sheridan, in yesterday's Australian put forward an excellent case for voting 'Yes' but preserving religious liberty as we know it. In my opinion cake baking etc. are really not covered by religious liberty. The people who think they are and act on it tend to be bitter sectarians from Ulster or the Deep South. I think we need to be quite clear on this.

I have no problem with people clinging to their belief systems, and expect that because of this many will oppose same-sex marriage. I am not impacted, but do support equality principles generally which is consistent with supporting human civil and procedural rights. I disagree with the author that marriage should be a matter for religious institutions. The religious ceremony is an optional extra for those who wish it. The term marriage is not the exclusive right of religious institutions. Neither the Church or State should meddle in people’s personal lives or attempt to establish a two-tier system in which fundamental rights are eroded based on personal disapproval and resent that the government has chosen to offload their responsibilities to the public by seeking a popularity-based opinion poll so that judgements may be made on who should be afforded human rights. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises marriage as a right and does not exclude same sex marriage. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr I agree with other responders to this article that marriage is a secular institution covered by secular laws and without reservation support same-sex marriage. Madeleine

If this argument is correct, and the state should get of marriage altogether, then we should eliminate the marriage clause in our Constitution. But Dr. Woodlock’s argument proves too much. Why stop at marriage? After all, as with “marriage”, there are any number of ways the “state” has been conceived by societies – from various forms of autocracy (theocratic, atheistic) through to democracy (Athens, Westminster system) and thence to anarchic systems (medieval Ireland, Australian aboriginal). And just as Dr. Woodlock correctly notes of marriage, there also will never be universal agreement as to what a good “state” is. Given this, shouldn’t our federal and state governments duly abolish *all* the articles of their constitutions, dissolve themselves, and let each individual on the Australian mainland come together with others of like mind and live together in their own versions of “states”? Arguments that prove way too much usually do so because they fail to consider all the relevant facts. And here the facts Dr. Woodlock omits to consider pertain to the objective nature of man, marriage, society and the state. Regardless as to the spectrum of definitions of “state”, some are objectively better or worse than others, according as by their particular form they will, when implemented, tend or not to realise their essential purpose as states — namely, to promote the common good of society. Likewise some concepts of marriage are better or worse than others, depending as to whether or not, when implemented, they tend to promote the optimal raising of children, which is what marriage is essentially for. But—and here’s the link—children, the end of marriage, are the next iteration of society, the good of which is the end of the state. Therefore the state of any society, for the common good, has a duty to identify, acknowledge and promote, as much as it prudently can, the objectively best form of marriage over all rival conceptions. It would spell suicide for our society were our state to wash hands of this fundamental responsibility, difficult though it is to take on in an age when so many hare-brained notions of fundamental objective realities such as man, woman, husband, wife, sex, family, marriage, truth, etc, are floating about that life is rapidly devolving into a series of Monty Python skits, minus the funny side.

The churches will have the freedom to marry who and how they wish. The Catholic Church only recognises Catholic marriage anyway. My grandmother had to go behind the altar to marry my grandfather, because he wasn't Catholic. My mother was told to obey her husband. My dear Aboriginal friend was baptised behind the church. Catholics need to look within, I think we should clean up our own church with all that is going on. There's a lot to do without worrying about civil law.

Detriment is faced by all de facto couples either because of regulatory gaps, or failure to uphold provisions like superannuation and industrial laws. Heterosexual couples can choose to marry whereas same-sex couples cannot. Those detriments include the requirement to “prove” the authenticity of a de facto marriage if receiving Centrelink payments; difficulty being recognised as next of kin; contributing to funeral arrangements when a de facto partner dies; difficulty and delays in accessing financial records and accounts, superannuation, life insurance and the like. Video Same Sex-Marriage – The Facts http://www.smh.com.au/video/video-news/video-national-news/samesex-marriage-the-facts-20161003-4leoa.html.Another detriment is the treatment by some retirement villages surviving partners are treated by when a de facto partner does. In a recent case illustrating the scandalous way in which a same-sex male surviving de facto partner Geoff Richards was treated by the retirement village and aged care group AVEO. He and his partner Harry had been personal and business partners for 55 years at the time of Harry’s death and had lived in the village. as a same-sex de facto couple for 4 years at the time of Harry’s death. Geoff was tossed out. ABC Four Corners Bleed them till they die http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2017/06/26/4689969.htm

Same sex families exist already, HH. Same sex couples already have children. Whatever the relative merits of non-traditional families, and you have your concerns, why would you deny them access to civil marriage? Why would you condemn the children to what you would call illegitimacy? Surely not for the sake of dissuading others?

I notice in today's 'Australian' (11 September 2017) an article in favour of the 'No' vote by Mark Coleredge, Catholic Archbishop of Brisbane and one by Jennifer Oriel about the need to make sure that supporters of traditional marriage are protected from various forms of malicious legal action when Same Sex Marriage comes in. Public debate in Australia took a new low when Benjamin Law, author of the latest 'Quarterly Essay', which calls for a national rollout of the Safe Schools Program, tweeted about 'hate f-king' the homophobia out of 'anti-gay MPs in parliament'. Law is a prominent supporter of SSM.

It's taken a while for the penny to drop – although it should have dropped earlier given ES’s visible penchant for publishing opinion pieces that seem to be Catholic heterodoxies - but whenever Dr. Rachel Woodlock appears in these pages ostensibly defending Islam, what she is really representing is a kinder and gentler heterodox Mohammedanism that isn’t Islam. Where in Islam (or the Bahai religion) does it say that it is permissible for the state to allow men to marry men and women to marry women, given that the state must not go against Allah? ES is being more subtle than the serpent in the Garden when what an opinion piece ostensibly on Islam offers for inspection and consumption isn’t the fruit of the knowledge of Islam but the fruit of the knowledge of cafeteria Islam. But, (real) Islam is a serious problem worthy of strong discussion: if we’re to be baited with an article that apparently concerns it, let’s not be switched to an author coming from a fluffy, harmless distortion of it, let’s be confronted by an author who really believes in the genuine stuff or the engagement, instead of being real, will only be feinting at shadows.

This is 'an opinion piece ostensibly on Islam'? You've lost me Roy and, by the looks of it, every other contributor to the discussion. I could have sworn it was about marriage and the state.