Australia to introduce Sharia law

This issue split US voters and continues to cause social disharmony, litigation and administrative acrimony. Oddly, some Coalition MPs seem keen to import this religious fundamentalism from the southern states of the USA and incorporate it into Australian legislation. Suddenly the separation between church and state is over and religious lore can take precedence.

Remember: Kim Davis is not a priest, vicar or chaplain; she is a public servant with a duty of care. It’s the same for any Australian in a similar position. Public servants should not be allowed to pick and choose who they will and won’t help based on personal religious belief.

Who’s next? Will single mothers, interracial couples, Jews, Muslims, people who eat shellfish, drink alcohol, wear a hidjab, support blood transfusions or work on Sundays also be rejected by public servants who find that these things offend their religious beliefs?

The answer to this is no, because despite being described as ‘religious belief’ the proposed law is in fact only quarantined to discriminating against homosexuals. It’s not blanket religious freedom, it’s specifically a denial of freedom for same-sex couples. 

Second, the Christianists want religious lore to apply to any civil celebrant who, for personal religious reasons, objects to homosexual people.

Again, let’s be clear. We’re not talking about priests, imams and rabbis here, they already have understandable exemptions. Affirmed and ordained ministers cannot be compelled to marry anyone against the beliefs and tenets of their faith. This is already law.

However, priests, imams and rabbis are performing a religious sacrament, a civil celebrant is not.

A marriage celebrant has chosen to perform a de facto administrative role for the commonwealth. In this regard they are like Justices of the Peace, who undertake community service under the rules and guidance of the government.

A civil celebrant who opposes gay couples because of their ‘personal religious belief’ should not have that prejudice supported by law, any more than a JP could turn away LGBTI people seeking their administrative help on a personal matter.

And let’s be honest, no same-sex couples will insist that a marriage celebrant who opposes gay marriage perform their ceremony. No-one wants that. It does not need to be prescribed in law, the free market will sort it out and gay couples will find a friendly celebrant with whom to do business. There are more than 8,000 in Australia. 

In November last year, Muslim prisoner Milad Bin Ahmad-Shah Al-Ahmadzai refused to stand in court or recognise the Judge, citing his ‘religious belief.’

There was no sympathy for him across Australia, with everyone demanding he recognise Australian laws and values. Ironically, many people making this demand were among the strongest supporters of religious freedom from Australian law on marriage.  They want to pick and choose when ‘religious belief’ trumps civil law and who can exercise it.