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


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.


RSS 2.0

Senate harmony on marriage glosses over the deep divisions in rainbow politics

By Lyle Shelton - posted Friday, 24 February 2017

The day after Valentine's Day, there was an apparent outbreak of love in Parliament amongst Senators on opposite sides of the same-sex marriage debate.

There had been a meeting of minds and hearts, it seemed. Consensus had been reached on a pathway forward for so called "marriage equality", it was asserted.

The trigger for this goodwill and warm feelings was the tabling of a Senate Select Committee report examining the potential impacts of redefining marriage on religious freedom.


It was significant that it was tabled without the usual dissenting report attached.

Labor, Greens, Liberal and Nationals Senators had agreed that some religious freedom should be protected and that Australians who were not professional pastors would have their rights and freedoms impacted should marriage law ever change.

Consequences to the freedoms of other Australians is something rarely if ever conceded by proponents of same-sex marriage.

For years they have said changing the Marriage Act was a simple tweaking of a few words, nothing more.

The committee was chaired by South Australian Liberal Senator David Fawcett who supports keeping the definition of marriage.

He told the Senate: "I note that if Australia is to remain a plural, tolerant society where different views are valued and legal, legislators must recognise that this change will require careful, simultaneous consideration of a wide range of specialist areas of law as opposed to the common perception that it involves just a few words in one act of parliament."


While the committee did not agree on how best to ensure that different views on marriage could remain legal without seeing ordinary Australians hauled before human rights commissions and fined, they at least agreed there would be consequences.

But the committee recognised that it was not bigotry for ministers of religion, civil marriage celebrants and even business owners who supply the wedding industry to wish to be free to live out their beliefs about marriage.

Senators supporting same-sex marriage were keen to foster the idea of collegial consensus between differing parties and that a harmonious path forward for redefining marriage could be charted.

  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.

94 posts so far.

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

About the Author

Lyle Shelton is Managing Director of the Australian Christian Lobby based in Canberra.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Lyle Shelton

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

Photo of Lyle Shelton
Article Tools
Comment 94 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy