tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/marriage-equality-6144/articlesMarriage equality – The Conversation2023-09-13T16:49:32Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2129442023-09-13T16:49:32Z2023-09-13T16:49:32ZA constitutional revolution is underway at the Supreme Court, as the conservative supermajority rewrites basic understandings of the roots of US law<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/547245/original/file-20230908-19-u5ekav.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=24%2C0%2C5443%2C3639&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, written in 1787 on parchment paper.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/this-is-the-preamble-to-the-us-constitution-it-starts-with-news-photo/144085092?adppopup=true">Joe Sohm/Visions of America/Universal Images Group via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In a 2006 episode of the television show <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0402711/">“Boston Legal</a>,” conservative lawyer <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzmrZWe_9eg">Denny Crane</a> asserted that he had a constitutional right to carry a concealed firearm: “And the Supreme Court is going to say so, just as soon as they overturn Roe v. Wade.” </p>
<p>That was a joke, an unimaginable event, when the show aired 17 years ago. Then in 2022, the court announced <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/roe-wade-overturned-supreme-court.html">both</a> <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/in-6-3-ruling-court-strikes-down-new-yorks-concealed-carry-law/">changes</a>, shifting the butt of a joke to the law of the land in a brief span of years – and signaling the start of what is sometimes called a “constitutional revolution.” </p>
<p>Scholars describe a constitutional revolution as “<a href="https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300231021/constitutional-revolution/">a historic constitutional course correction</a>,” or a “<a href="https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3910&context=mlr">deep change in constitutional meaning</a>.” </p>
<p>As <a href="https://www.constitutionday.com/">Constitution Day</a> is celebrated this year on Sept. 17 – the anniversary of the signing of <a href="https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript">America’s basic law</a> in 1787 – I believe a shift of that magnitude is clearly occurring in the recent rulings of the Supreme Court.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/547247/original/file-20230908-23-fzjq97.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Nine people in black robes seated together in an elegant, high-ceilinged room under a chandelier." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/547247/original/file-20230908-23-fzjq97.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/547247/original/file-20230908-23-fzjq97.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/547247/original/file-20230908-23-fzjq97.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/547247/original/file-20230908-23-fzjq97.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/547247/original/file-20230908-23-fzjq97.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/547247/original/file-20230908-23-fzjq97.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/547247/original/file-20230908-23-fzjq97.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Justices of the Supreme Court pose for their official photo at the Supreme Court building in Washington, Oct. 7, 2022.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/justices-of-the-us-supreme-court-pose-for-their-official-news-photo/1243795208?adppopup=true">Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Revolutionary rulings</h2>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/a-seismic-change-has-taken-place-at-the-supreme-court-but-its-not-clear-if-the-shift-is-about-principle-or-party-190815">In the 2021-22 term</a>, the Supreme Court’s dramatic rulings focused on <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-revolutionary-ruling-and-not-just-for-abortion-a-supreme-court-scholar-explains-the-impact-of-dobbs-185823">abortion</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-sweeps-aside-new-yorks-limits-on-carrying-a-gun-raising-second-amendment-rights-to-new-heights-183486">guns</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-supreme-courts-football-decision-is-a-game-changer-on-school-prayer-184619">religion</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-supreme-court-has-curtailed-epas-power-to-regulate-carbon-pollution-and-sent-a-warning-to-other-regulators-185281">the power of federal agencies</a>. In a nutshell, the justices removed the recognition of a constitutional right to abortion, expanded gun rights and religious rights, and restricted the power of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency to craft regulations.</p>
<p>In the recent 2022-2023 term, the court again addressed <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-business-can-decline-service-based-on-its-beliefs-supreme-court-rules-but-what-will-this-look-like-in-practice-207073">religion</a> and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/now-that-president-bidens-student-loan-cancellation-program-has-been-canceled-heres-whats-next-208551">power of the federal bureaucracy</a>, also adding <a href="https://theconversation.com/affirmative-action-lasted-over-50-years-3-essential-reads-explaining-how-it-ended-209273">race</a> as a major area of controversy in a decision that ended affirmative action in college admissions.</p>
<p>The core rulings on these disputes were all 6-3, with the <a href="https://theconversation.com/3-ways-a-6-3-supreme-court-would-be-different-146558">court’s new supermajority</a> of conservative justices on one side and the three remaining liberals in dissent.</p>
<p>Here are the three major cases from the past term expanding the constitutional revolution:</p>
<h2>Race: Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf">This case</a> challenged the constitutionality of affirmative action programs at American universities. Unlike previous affirmative action cases, which featured white applicants who claimed to have been discriminated against in favor of minority students, this lawsuit focused on another minority – Asians – who believed they were treated worse than other minorities and whites in the Harvard admissions process.</p>
<p>The heart of the controversy is about the meaning of the <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xiv/clauses/702">equal protection clause</a> of the <a href="https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment">Fourteenth Amendment</a>: “No State shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”</p>
<p>The court ruled that the equal protection principle means public institutions may not take race into account, even when they are using racial preferences to the advantage of minority groups who suffered a history of oppression.</p>
<p>The Harvard case effectively overrules <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/02-241">a prior decision</a> in 2003 that allowed universities to use racial preferences in order to achieve a degree of diversity on campus.</p>
<p>The new constitutional rule is that the equal protection clause is a promise to treat all citizens of all races the same, rather than the alternative understanding of the clause’s promise to move society toward equity among racial groups, which allows or even encourages the differential treatment of some groups in order to make up for past injustices.</p>
<h2>Religion: 303 Creative v. Elenis</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf">This case</a> asked whether the First Amendment’s protections of religion and speech override the protections for LGBT citizens in state laws. Does a business owner who wants to provide only wedding websites for celebrations that comport with their religious convictions have to provide the same service for couples whose unions they do not endorse?</p>
<p>The court ruled that regardless of the religious component, it is a violation of free speech for the government to compel the expression of any messages inconsistent with one’s beliefs, even in the context of a business transaction.</p>
<p>While technically a ruling on speech, this is a controversy about religious citizens demanding exemptions from anti-discrimination laws. The ruling is part of a <a href="https://theconversation.com/christianity-at-the-supreme-court-from-majority-power-to-minority-rights-119718">long trend expanding religious liberty</a>.</p>
<p>The new rule in this case extended the previous term’s dramatic change in the constitutional law of religion in the praying coach case, <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kennedy-v-bremerton-school-district-2/">Kennedy v. Bremerton</a>. In that case, the court ruled that the religion clauses at the beginning of the <a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/">First Amendment</a> have a clear meaning: The government may not coerce any citizen when it comes to religion – either toward or away from religious beliefs. If any action of the government is pushing someone to abandon or embrace religious behavior, that is not allowable. </p>
<p>In the case of the praying coach, this meant a public school could not block his display of prayer at a sporting event, something that would have been seen as an unconstitutional entanglement of government with religion under previous courts. The new interpretation of the First Amendment explained in this line of rulings – giving the benefit of the doubt to religious believers whenever there is a judgment call – dramatically increases the protections for religious citizens.</p>
<h2>The administrative state: Biden v. Nebraska</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf">The justices in this case</a> struck down President Joe Biden’s <a href="https://studentaid.gov/debt-relief-announcement">student loan forgiveness program</a>, which would have eliminated up to US$20,000 of debt for millions of Americans, with a total price tag of approximately $430 billion. The decision to bar the administration’s program was grounded in a new principle known as the “<a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12077">major questions doctrine</a>.”</p>
<p>This principle diminishes the power of many federal agencies. It first appeared in the court’s rulings during the pandemic, halting the Biden administration’s <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf">eviction moratorium</a> and <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf">vaccine mandate</a>. The clearest statement of the doctrine came in 2022 in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/west-virginia-v-environmental-protection-agency/">West Virginia v. EPA</a>, limiting the agency’s ability to introduce new regulations curbing greenhouse gas emissions and shifting energy production toward cleaner sources. </p>
<p>The doctrine asserts that an administrative agency – like the Department of Education, which initiated the loan forgiveness program – cannot decide what the court sees as a major political question, which includes doing something with a large price tag or making a dramatic change in policy, unless the agency has explicit authorization from Congress. </p>
<p>The justification for the new doctrine, expressed most clearly by <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf#page=40">Justice Neil Gorsuch</a>, is that only Congress wields the authority delegated by the voters, who can reward or punish those members of Congress in the next election. Federal agencies are not limited by the same control through elections, and are wielding the delegated authority of Congress rather than their own inherent power. The major question doctrine argues that if agencies are allowed to make major policy decisions, we do not have representative government as demanded by the Constitution.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/547263/original/file-20230908-27-trso3u.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A large granite building with a sign in front of it." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/547263/original/file-20230908-27-trso3u.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/547263/original/file-20230908-27-trso3u.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/547263/original/file-20230908-27-trso3u.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/547263/original/file-20230908-27-trso3u.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/547263/original/file-20230908-27-trso3u.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/547263/original/file-20230908-27-trso3u.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/547263/original/file-20230908-27-trso3u.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Supreme Court has issued rulings in the past two years curbing the power of government agencies such as the EPA.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/TrumpFuelEconomy/2cc48b47e8604200bbe08d2653d69bcd/photo?Query=EPA%20headquarters%20building%20Clinton&mediaType=photo&sortBy=&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=638&currentItemNo=7&vs=true">AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Destination unknown</h2>
<p>This constitutional revolution could lead far beyond abortion, guns, race, religion or the administrative state. What is known on this Constitution Day is that the revolution will likely continue, expressed in Supreme Court opinions crafted by the new supermajority of conservative justices.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/212944/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Morgan Marietta does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The changes wrought by the new conservative majority in the US Supreme Court are revolutionary.Morgan Marietta, Professor of Political Science, University of Texas at ArlingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2045182023-05-23T18:36:51Z2023-05-23T18:36:51ZIndian activists call for recognition of queer relationships beyond marriage<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/527088/original/file-20230518-21-svvca8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C31%2C5301%2C3475&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Demonstrators carry a rainbow flag as they march demanding equal marriage rights in New Delhi, India on Jan. 8, 2023. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo)</span></span></figcaption></figure><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100px; border: none; position: relative; z-index: 1;" allowtransparency="" allow="clipboard-read; clipboard-write" src="https://narrations.ad-auris.com/widget/the-conversation-canada/indian-activists-call-for-recognition-of-queer-relationships-beyond-marriage" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>The Supreme Court of India <a href="https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/sc-same-sex-marriage-here-are-the-arguments-over-10-days-8609177/">recently finished</a> hearing <a href="https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/governance/marriage-equality-what-good-is-symbolic-recognition-of-one-s-relationships-sans-rights--88940">petitions</a> related to marriage equality for queer and trans people. A group of 18 couples has <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/05/09/1174752874/india-same-sex-marriage-case-supreme-court">petitioned</a> the country’s highest court to legalize same-sex marriage.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.boomlive.in/explainers/same-sex-marriage-wrong-term-what-is-a-marriage-equality-petition-in-india-21762">Marriage equality</a> would grant LGBTQ+ couples rights currently only available to those married to people of the opposite sex.</p>
<p>Activists are also calling for the recognition of queer and trans kinships beyond marriage. Trans and queer kinships provide emotional as well as material supports and care. But legalizing marriage alone ignores such kinship ties. </p>
<p>Many who choose such kinships over marriage will not have access to rights and benefits that are associated with marriage.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/524933/original/file-20230508-266123-o6xtme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A woman at a protest holds a placard that reads: self identification is a human right." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/524933/original/file-20230508-266123-o6xtme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/524933/original/file-20230508-266123-o6xtme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/524933/original/file-20230508-266123-o6xtme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/524933/original/file-20230508-266123-o6xtme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/524933/original/file-20230508-266123-o6xtme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/524933/original/file-20230508-266123-o6xtme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/524933/original/file-20230508-266123-o6xtme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Protestors hold placards during a demonstration against an anti-LGBT bill in Bangalore, India in November 2019.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Beyond marriage</h2>
<p>In February, activists Rituparna Borah, Chayanika Shah, Minakshi Sanyal, Maya Sharma and six anonymized petitioners <a href="http://orinam.net/content/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Rituparna-Borah-Ors.-v.-UOI-WP-No.-260-of-2023-as-filed.pdf">filed a petition</a> before the Supreme Court demanding the right to form legally recognized families — even if they do not revolve around marriage.</p>
<p>These 10 petitioners are calling for the legal recognition of <a href="https://www.thequint.com/gender/chosen-family-queer-and-trans-persons-life-marriage-equality#read-more">an expansive idea of family</a> which goes beyond the institution of marriage and is not solely defined by birth or adoption. </p>
<p>They are asking the court to affirm the rights of queer and trans people who have <a href="https://lifestyle.livemint.com/relationships/it-s-complicated/the-petition-you-need-to-know-about-from-the-same-sex-marriage-hearings-that-start-today-111681805877468.html">various forms of kinships</a>, friendships and non-monogamous relationships that are not deemed legitimate in the eyes of the law.</p>
<p><a href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/no-court-of-law-can-tell-us-whom-to-love-says-lesbian-couple/articleshow/50827605.cms">Queer</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/08/indian-transgender-couple-tie-knot-in-landmark-rainbow-wedding">trans</a> people have long been getting married in India even without legal recognition. Marriage has legal and socio-cultural legitimacy that is unparalleled.</p>
<h2>Legal, political and social hurdles</h2>
<p>However, marriage in the Indian context enables the inequalities of the caste system to persist. <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-35650616">Caste</a> is a hierarchical socio-religious system which continues to privilege people of upper castes while excluding lower caste and caste-oppressed people. </p>
<p>Activists see marriage as a <a href="https://www.newsclick.in/marriage-equality-case-queer-and-trans-persons-assert-right-define-family">casteist</a> institution and are demanding that the state recognize queer and trans kinships beyond marriage.</p>
<p>Marriage cannot contain all kinds of <a href="https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/thicker-blood-queer-kinship-and-choosing-your-own-families-88253">relationships, needs and wants that inform the lives of queer and trans people in India</a>. Therefore, <a href="https://indianculturalforum.in/2021/11/24/what-we-dont-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-same-sex-marriage/">marriage equality</a> alone <a href="https://thewire.in/lgbtqia/queer-trans-deaths-equal-same-sex-marriage">cannot save</a> or protect all trans and queer lives. </p>
<p>For example, social injustice and political mobilization can <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00856401.2023.2150446">inform strong relationships</a>.
Kinships rooted in affection, care, mutual support, activism and solidarity, deserve recognition, and the rights that flow from it.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/524935/original/file-20230508-29-6su8wd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="People at a march with rainbow coloured balloons and a banner that reads: Delhi queer pride." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/524935/original/file-20230508-29-6su8wd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/524935/original/file-20230508-29-6su8wd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/524935/original/file-20230508-29-6su8wd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/524935/original/file-20230508-29-6su8wd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/524935/original/file-20230508-29-6su8wd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/524935/original/file-20230508-29-6su8wd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/524935/original/file-20230508-29-6su8wd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">People attending a march demanding equal marriage rights in New Delhi, India on Jan. 8 2023.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Networks of care</h2>
<p>Disabled and neurodivergent trans and queer people experience <a href="https://www.hindustantimes.com/lifestyle/relationships/how-indians-with-disabilities-find-love-through-dating-apps-101677134546666.html">more discrimination</a> when it comes to establishing relationships. Their partners are also often <a href="https://medium.com/skin-stories/if-you-want-the-full-story-you-have-to-start-with-our-love-story-dd8291a73495">dissuaded</a> or discouraged by their families from <a href="https://www.thebetterindia.com/295644/disabled-activist-nu-misra-on-navigating-sexuality-stereotypes/">dating</a> them. </p>
<p>They often choose <a href="https://feminisminindia.com/2022/02/08/the-loves-of-my-wildest-dreams-valentines-day-plans-and-beyond/">broader networks</a> of care, affection and support. </p>
<p>Recognition of different kinds of trans and queer kinships can also help dismantle relationship hierarchies. When marriage is the only valid and legal relationship, it runs the risk of marginalizing those <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2pZ3KQPZ9A">excluded</a> from it.</p>
<p>Moreover, there are trans kinships which cannot be subsumed within the institution of marriage — such as <a href="https://journals.openedition.org/samaj/3992">Hijra households</a> with complex <a href="https://www.fordhampress.com/9780823294718/hijras-lovers-brothers/">kinship</a> structures.</p>
<p>Older trans and queer people <a href="https://www.queerbeat.org/stories/long-shadows-in-the-sunset">aging into disabilities</a> might find it even harder to successfully advocate for themselves and their partners as they age. </p>
<p>Apart from marriage equality, the Indian state needs to be committed to equity to ensure the survival of trans and queer people as well as their kinship networks. Marriage equality without attention to equity cannot do justice to trans and queer lives.</p>
<p>If trans kinship is to be legally recognized, it should also align with demands for <a href="https://upscwithnikhil.com/article/polity/what-is-the-difference-between-vertical-and-horizontal-reservations-in-india">horizontal reservations</a> and <a href="https://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2023/04/before-getting-married-i-want-to-live-with-pride/">equality</a>. </p>
<p>In India, <a href="https://www.thequint.com/explainers/trans-people-fight-for-horizontal-reservations-across-castes#read-more">horizontal reservations</a> refer to policies and quotas that address historical injustices and inequities faced by marginalized groups. Such reservations would provide caste-oppressed trans people <a href="https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/equal-stake-nation-transgender-people-demanding-horizontal-reservation-8570321/#:%7E:text=jobs%20and%20education.-,In%202021%2C%20Karnataka%20became%20the%20first%20and%20only%20state%20in,horizontal%20reservation%20for%20transgender%20persons.">guaranteed rights</a> with regards to education and employment which they struggle to access. </p>
<p>So far, <a href="https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/equal-stake-nation-transgender-people-demanding-horizontal-reservation-8570321/">Karnataka</a> remains the only Indian state to <a href="https://thewire.in/lgbtqia/karnataka-first-state-reserve-jobs-transgender-persons">partially</a> provide horizontal reservations for transgender people.</p>
<p>Trans people often experience violence and exclusion on the basis of caste as well as transphobia. Horizontal reservations recognizing caste oppression within trans communities means those who are unmarried, unpartnered and without community, can also survive when marriage equality prevails.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/527281/original/file-20230519-25-fs6kdw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A group of people stand in a line. Some are chatting to each other." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/527281/original/file-20230519-25-fs6kdw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/527281/original/file-20230519-25-fs6kdw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/527281/original/file-20230519-25-fs6kdw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/527281/original/file-20230519-25-fs6kdw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/527281/original/file-20230519-25-fs6kdw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/527281/original/file-20230519-25-fs6kdw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/527281/original/file-20230519-25-fs6kdw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Transgender women and gay men wait in line to receive a number as part of the process to apply for asylum in the United States, at the border in Tijuana, Mexico on Nov. 15, 2018.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Gregory Bull)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Kinship ties are important in the lives of variously marginalized trans people in various parts of the world. In 2018, a group of LGBTQ+ migrants, including 30 trans women, <a href="https://academic.oup.com/migration/article/9/3/1075/6179036">presented themselves together</a> at the United States’ southern border, having travelled through Mexico from Honduras. </p>
<p>They asserted the existence of their kinship by applying for asylum in the U.S. together. Even though they identified as a group, they were separated from each other and sent to different detention centres. </p>
<p>As marriage is associated with rights that cannot be obtained otherwise, it is crucial to <a href="https://www.theindiaforum.in/article/redefining-same-sex-marriage#Top">make living and relating possible</a> for those who want to — or have to — survive without it. </p>
<p>We need to advocate for the recognition of broader and inclusive forms of trans and queer kinship so that their critical support networks are not invalidated in the eyes of the law if and when marriage equality becomes a reality in India.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204518/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sohini Chatterjee receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) as a Vanier Scholar.</span></em></p>Trans and queer kinships provide emotional as well as material supports and care. But legalizing marriage alone would ignore such kinship ties.Sohini Chatterjee, PhD Candidate & Vanier Scholar in Gender, Sexuality, and Women's Studies, Western UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1957092022-12-07T13:43:51Z2022-12-07T13:43:51ZBiden signs marriage equality bill into law – but the Respect for Marriage Act has a few key limitations<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499327/original/file-20221206-20-tgqn8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=312%2C57%2C3924%2C2765&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Respect for Marriage Act will reverse the 1996 law that defines marriage as one between heterosexual couples.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/172126937/photo/us-california-same-sex-marriage.jpg?s=1024x1024&w=gi&k=20&c=VTSXlnnOvDEW7u24S8JrdFmzJSM6IzW6Gbi_-fRLbL8=">Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>President Joe Biden <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/12/13/1142331501/biden-to-sign-respect-for-marriage-act-reflecting-his-and-the-countrys-evolution">signed the</a> <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text">Respect for Marriage Act</a> on Dec. 13, 2022, protecting the federal right to same-gender marriage, which is often referred to as same-sex marriage.</p>
<p>The U.S. House of Representatives first <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/08/us/politics/same-sex-marriage-congress.html">approved the</a> the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text">Respect for Marriage Act</a> – a law that codifies both interracial and same-gender marriage – on Dec. 8, 2022. This followed the <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/respect-for-marriage-act-senate-vote-marriage-equality-bill/">Senate passing</a> the Respect for Marriage Act on Nov. 29, 2022. </p>
<p>Many leaders of major LGBTQ+ rights organizations have praised the Respect for Marriage Act. For example, Kelley Robinson, president of the LGBTQ+ advocacy group the Human Rights Campaign, <a href="https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/a-landmark-step-toward-equality-human-rights-campaign-celebrates-senate-passage-of-bipartisan-respect-for-marriage-act">said in November 2022</a> that the act will allow “the 568,000 same-sex married couples in this country … (to) breathe a sigh of relief that their marriages will be protected from future attacks.”</p>
<p>However, the Respect for Marriage Act also has various limitations that have not received a lot of public attention. As a <a href="https://wgss.osu.edu/people/debussy.1">public policy scholar</a> with a focus on LGBTQ+ issues, I’ve noticed at least three major shortcomings related to this imminent law. And as such, I don’t necessarily expect it to lead to legal protection and equality for all. </p>
<p>One key issue is that anti-LGBTQ+ laws in conservative states could undercut the Respect for Marriage Act. The act also provides an exemption for religious nonprofits. And finally, it does not fix a long-lasting problem that penalizes the marriages of people with disabilities – regardless of their sexuality. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499075/original/file-20221205-12-yb6d53.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A white man in a suit is seen hugging a lady with dark hair. Next to him a blond woman with red glasses moves to hug another woman with blonde hair, as seen from the back." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499075/original/file-20221205-12-yb6d53.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499075/original/file-20221205-12-yb6d53.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499075/original/file-20221205-12-yb6d53.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499075/original/file-20221205-12-yb6d53.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499075/original/file-20221205-12-yb6d53.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499075/original/file-20221205-12-yb6d53.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499075/original/file-20221205-12-yb6d53.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Several lawmakers celebrate after the Senate voted to approve the Respect for Marriage Act on Nov. 29, 2022.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1245218619/photo/senate-passes-respect-for-marriage-act.jpg?s=1024x1024&w=gi&k=20&c=vy_UtS3LVbG_yTV3KN4UvXIA3dOxGxuwXwOLzBv3Fpc=">Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>First, a bit of background</h2>
<p>The Respect for Marriage Act will repeal the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defense_of_marriage_act_(doma)">Defense of Marriage Act</a>, which President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996. The Defense of Marriage Act set the federal definition of marriage as “one man, one woman” and allowed states to refuse to honor same-gender marriage licenses issued by other states.</p>
<p>In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that part of this law was unconstitutional in the case, <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-307">U.S. v. Windsor</a>. In 2015, the court also issued another ruling, <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556">Obergefell v. Hodges</a>, which required all states to license and recognize same-gender marriages.</p>
<p>But <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/11/29/statement-from-president-joe-biden-on-bipartisan-senate-passage-of-the-respect-for-marriage-act/">concern about</a> the court’s precedent on same-gender marriage was ignited after the Supreme Court made its June 2022 ruling in <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/11/29/statement-from-president-joe-biden-on-bipartisan-senate-passage-of-the-respect-for-marriage-act/">Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization,</a> which overturned the federal right to an abortion. </p>
<p>Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf">concurrent opinion</a> alongside the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling. In it, <a href="https://www.axios.com/2022/06/24/clarence-thomas-same-sex-marriage-contraception">he wrote that</a> since abortion rights are not protected under the 14th Amendment – which provides people with <a href="https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/14th-amendment.htm">“equal protection under the laws”</a> – the court should also review several past cases, such as ones that affirmed the rights to contraception and same-gender marriages. </p>
<p>Because of this, Democratic and Republican legislators fast-tracked the Respect for Marriage Act through Congress in the fall of 2022.</p>
<h2>It doesn’t stop states from passing discriminatory laws</h2>
<p>While the Defense of Marriage Act is not currently enforced, it remains on the books. The Respect for Marriage Act fully repeals the Defense of Marriage Act – but it <a href="https://www.axios.com/2022/11/30/respect-for-marriage-act-does-and-doesnt-do">won’t stop states</a> from passing their own new discriminatory marriage restrictions or enforcing preexisting measures.</p>
<p>Among other things, the Respect for Marriage Act <a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIV-S1-1/ALDE_00013015/">requires all </a> states to <a href="https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/respect-for-marriage-act-what-it-does-how-it-interacts-with-the-obergefell-ruling-and-why-theyre-both-essential-to-protecting-marriage-equality">recognize marriage licenses</a> from other states. </p>
<p>Some legal experts have noted that the conservative-leaning Supreme Court could overturn <a href="https://www.them.us/story/obergefell-legal-experts-lgbtq-marriage-protection">its previous rulings on marriage equality.</a> In that case, states could try to deny marriage licenses to interracial and same-gender couples by passing new state laws. </p>
<p>If that happens, these states would have to recognize same-gender marriage licenses from other states where it remains legal. But states could still pass and enforce a racist or anti-LGBTQ+ measure that restricts access to marriage licenses there.</p>
<p>In that instance, the only way some couples could have their marriage recognized at home would be by traveling to another LGBTQ+ friendly state to get a marriage license – similar to how some people now <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/07/21/1112609958/even-before-the-dobbs-ruling-more-americans-were-traveling-for-abortions">travel out of state</a> to get an abortion. This scenario would almost immediately result in a flurry of lawsuits at the state level.</p>
<h2>It gives exemptions to religious nonprofits</h2>
<p>When the <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/respect-for-marriage-act-senate-vote-marriage-equality-bill/">Senate passed</a> the Respect for Marriage Act, the bill had a <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/11/28/gay-marriage-same-sex-religious-liberty-senate/10790692002/">new religious liberty amendment</a> added to it. While this concession was a <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/these-12-republican-senators-voted-advance-respect-marriage-act-1762912">draw for some Republican legislators</a>, it creates some notable exemptions. </p>
<p>This language codifies the rights of religious nonprofits – including faith-based institutions, mission organizations, religious educational institutions and others – to not celebrate or, in some instances, recognize a marriage that conflicts with their faith. </p>
<p>In doing so, such organizations are <a href="https://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/2022/11/30/todd-young-same-sex-marriage-law-indiana-lgbtq-rights-2022/69682795007/">allowed to deny</a> “services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.”</p>
<p>In short, religious institutions could still refuse to host or officiate wedding ceremonies or to provide services, on the basis of religious liberty. </p>
<p>This exemption follows the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/19-123">Fulton v. City of Philadelphia</a>. In that case, the court <a href="https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-unanimously-upholds-religious-liberty-over-lgbtq-rights-and-nods-to-a-bigger-win-for-conservatives-ahead-161398">unanimously decided</a> that a Christian adoption agency in the city could refuse to work with a same-gender couple.</p>
<p>Currently, the impact that this clause of the Respect for Marriage Act could have on LGBTQ+ rights remains to be seen. Even so, this builds upon a longer history of religious liberty arguments that have been used to deny rights to <a href="https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/masterpiece-bakery-wins-battle-loses-war">same-gender couples</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/upshot/conscience-rule-trump-religious-exemption-health-care.html">transgender people</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/hobby-lobby-case-supreme-court-contraception.html">women</a> and others.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499299/original/file-20221206-18-ven0c5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Three women stand next to each other in a city street, holding signs that say 'Don't dis my ability,' and 'the only disability in life is a bad attitude'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499299/original/file-20221206-18-ven0c5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499299/original/file-20221206-18-ven0c5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499299/original/file-20221206-18-ven0c5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499299/original/file-20221206-18-ven0c5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499299/original/file-20221206-18-ven0c5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499299/original/file-20221206-18-ven0c5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499299/original/file-20221206-18-ven0c5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">People celebrate the fifth annual Disability Pride March in New York in 2019.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1229016168/photo/new-york-celebrated-the-fifth-annual-disability-pride-with-a.jpg?s=1024x1024&w=gi&k=20&c=M6hH6x0cDWSUvA2kbd1Nl-OkR6ijIBTzmVXUycpmQm4=">Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>It doesn’t ensure marriage equality for people with disabilities</h2>
<p>Finally, the Respect for Marriage Act does not explicitly protect people with disabilities, who still <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/02/13/1080464176/disabled-americans-cant-marry-able-bodied-partners-without-losing-federal-benefi">do not have access</a> to marriage equality. </p>
<p>There are <a href="https://www.specialneedsalliance.org/the-voice/what-happens-when-persons-living-with-disabilities-marry-2/">several legal obstacles</a> that people with disabilities – whether identifying as LGBTQ+ or not – face when it comes to marriage. There is a so-called <a href="https://dredf.org/2022/03/28/disabled-adult-child-dac-marriage-penalty/">“marriage penalty,”</a> which can cause people with disabilities to lose benefits after marrying a nondisabled person.</p>
<p>While the Americans with Disabilities Act provides access to public accommodations, it <a href="https://equitashealth.com/blog/16863/">does not prohibit</a> this marriage penalty. This means that people with disabilities generally lose their Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits if they marry a nondisabled person.</p>
<p>While the Respect for Marriage Act repeals the Defense of Marriage Act, it will not repeal these marriage penalties from federal law. </p>
<p>Advocates are calling for proposed legislation, such as the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/6405/text">Marriage Equality for Disabled Adults Act.</a> This <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewpulrang/2020/08/31/a-simple-fix-for-one-of-disabled-peoples-most-persistent-pointless-injustices/?sh=76b5b45e6b71">would remove</a> this marriage penalty from federal law. Although disability rights activists continue to push for legislation to <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewpulrang/2022/03/31/whats-next-in-marriage-equality-for-people-with-disabilities/?sh=30e7b0d56eb7">undo this penalty</a>, the bill has been sitting with the House of Representatives subcommittee on health <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/6405/committees?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Marriage+Equality+for+Disabled+Adults+Act%22%2C%22Marriage%22%2C%22Equality%22%2C%22for%22%2C%22Disabled%22%2C%22Adults%22%2C%22Act%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=1">since January 2022</a>.</p>
<p>The Respect for Marriage Act is an important win for interracial and same-gender couples, as it will codify the right to marriage into federal law. However, it is important to remember what this bill does not do. </p>
<p>The limitations of the Respect for Marriage Act – including no restrictions on discriminatory state laws, the presence of religious exemptions and the unacknowledged needs of people with disabilities – remain important to consider.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/195709/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dorian Rhea Debussy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Respect for Marriage Act provides exemptions for religious groups, excludes people with disabilities – and could still lead to state-level discrimination laws.Dorian Rhea Debussy, Lecturer of Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, The Ohio State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1948792022-11-17T21:22:01Z2022-11-17T21:22:01ZHow same-sex marriage gained bipartisan support – a decadeslong process has brought it close to being written into federal law<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/495987/original/file-20221117-23-l4fall.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">People gather to celebrate LGBTQ pride week in Washington, D.C. in June 2021.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1323248787/photo/washington-dc-celebrates-pride-2021.jpg?s=1024x1024&w=gi&k=20&c=or_kRhEqEgdTtx_25mjBc7OpCq_B1pj8mGr88OAjY6Y=">Paul Morigi/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>While <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/how-abortion-became-divisive-issue-us-politics-2022-06-24/">public opinion</a> and <a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/overview-abortion-laws">different state laws</a> on abortion rights are sharply dividing the country, there’s growing indication that most people agree on another once-controversial topic – protecting same-sex marriage.</p>
<p>The U.S. Senate <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3738525-senate-votes-to-advance-same-sex-marriage-bill/">voted on Nov. 16, 2022</a>, to initiate debate on legislation that would protect same-sex and interracial marriage, making it legal regardless of where these couples live and what state laws determine. </p>
<p>Senators voted 62-37 to move forward on a final vote for the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404">Respect for Marriage Act</a>, with 12 Republicans joining Democrats in their support for the bill. </p>
<p>The legislation would also repeal the 1996 <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defense_of_marriage_act_(doma)">Defense of Marriage Act</a>, a federal law that defines marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman.</p>
<p>The U.S. House of Representatives already voted on July 19, 2022, to <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text?r=1&s=1">enshrine same-sex marriage </a> into law with a bipartisan vote – all 220 Democratic representatives voted in favor, joined by 47 Republican colleagues. </p>
<p><a href="https://academics.morris.umn.edu/tim-lindberg">I am a scholar</a> of political behavior and history in the U.S. I believe that it’s important to understand that the bipartisan support for this bill marks a significant political transformation on same-sex marriage, which was used as a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096505056295">contentious point</a> separating Democrats and Republicans roughly 15 to 20 years ago.</p>
<p>But over the past several years, same-sex marriage has become less politically divisive and gained more public approval, driven in part by former President Donald Trump’s general <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/16/republicans-gay-marriage-wars-505041">acceptance of the practice</a>. This environment made it politically safe for nearly a quarter of Republican House members to vote to protect this right under federal law. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/495984/original/file-20221117-25-luwt4s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A middle aged white woman with blonde hair and a blue pantsuit walks through a room, with other younger women at her side." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/495984/original/file-20221117-25-luwt4s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/495984/original/file-20221117-25-luwt4s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/495984/original/file-20221117-25-luwt4s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/495984/original/file-20221117-25-luwt4s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/495984/original/file-20221117-25-luwt4s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/495984/original/file-20221117-25-luwt4s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/495984/original/file-20221117-25-luwt4s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska is one of the 12 Republican lawmakers who voted to advance the same-sex marriage bill on Nov. 16, 2022.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1442021062/photo/senate-votes-on-same-sex-marriage-equality-bill.jpg?s=1024x1024&w=gi&k=20&c=v4sctFA99ZLcKMvkcn17X6GiI7XrlcaMoGie4GvVJmM=">Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What makes opinions change?</h2>
<p>Seventy-one percent of Americans say they support legal same-sex marriage, according to a <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/393197/same-sex-marriage-support-inches-new-high.aspx">July 2022 Gallup poll</a>. In 1996, when Gallup first polled about same-sex marriage, 27% supported legalization of same-sex marriage.</p>
<p>This shift in public opinion has happened despite increasing polarization in the U.S. <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/12/17/in-a-politically-polarized-era-sharp-divides-in-both-partisan-coalitions/">about gun control, racial justice</a> and climate change.</p>
<p>What becomes, remains or ceases to be a divisive political issue in the U.S. over time depends on many factors. Changes to laws, shifting cultural norms and technological progress can all shape political controversies.</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898030619000277">My research, for example, explores</a> how Mormons in Utah territory – what would later become Utah state – were denied statehood by Congress until they gave up their religious belief in polygamy. Polygamy was outlawed under U.S. law, and known polygamists were excluded from voting and holding office. In the 1880s, <a href="https://theconversation.com/explaining-polygamy-and-its-history-in-the-mormon-church-81384">an estimated 20% to 30%</a> of Mormons practiced polygamy. Yet, political pressure led the Mormon Church president in 1890 to <a href="https://theconversation.com/explaining-polygamy-and-its-history-in-the-mormon-church-81384">announce</a> that polygamy would no longer be sanctioned. </p>
<p>In 2011, <a href="https://www.deseret.com/2012/1/15/20244382/mormons-say-polygamy-morally-wrong-pew-poll-shows">86% of Mormon adults reported that they consider polygamy morally wrong</a>, nearly in line with <a href="https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/214601/moral-acceptance-polygamy-record-high-why.aspx">general public opinion</a>. </p>
<p>Many political leaders, both on the left and right, were also largely hostile to same-sex marriage <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/high-profile-politicians-changed-positions-gay-marriage/story?id=18740293">until the early 2010s.</a> </p>
<h2>A rising controversy</h2>
<p>In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/05/31/issenberg-book-excerpt-bill-woods-honolulu-doma-491401">state must have a compelling reason to ban same-sex marriage</a>, after a gay male couple and two lesbian couples <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/07/us/in-hawaii-step-toward-legalized-gay-marriage.html">filed a suit</a> that a state ban on same-sex marriage violated their privacy and equal protection rights. </p>
<p>Concern among conservatives that this legal reasoning would lead the Supreme Court to acknowledge a right to same-sex marriage led to a <a href="https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/how-and-why-doma-became-law-1996-msna20387">Republican Senator and Congressman</a> introducing the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defense_of_marriage_act_(doma)">Defense of Marriage Act</a>.</p>
<p>President Bill Clinton signed the bill in 1996 after <a href="https://law.jrank.org/pages/6038/Defense-Marriage-Act-1996.html">342 – or 78% – of House members and 85 senators</a> voted for it. Polling at the time showed support among the general population for same-sex marriage was <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/210566/support-gay-marriage-edges-new-high.aspx">27% overall, including just 33% among Democrats</a>. </p>
<p>Seven years later, in 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court struck down a <a href="http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/440/440mass309.html">state ban on same-sex marriage</a>. With a <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/311672/support-sex-marriage-matches-record-high.aspx">strong majority nationally of Republicans and independents opposed to same-sex marriage</a>, former President George W. Bush used conservative reactions to that decision to encourage voter turnout in 2004. <a href="https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/GAY-MARRIAGE-Did-issue-help-re-elect-Bush-2677003.php">Bush’s campaign highlighted state amendments to ban same-sex marriage</a>, all of which easily passed. </p>
<p>Although voters prioritized <a href="https://doi.org/10.2202/1540-8884.1056">other issues</a> in the 2004 elections, the opposition to same-sex marriage <a href="https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.2202/1540-8884.1058/html">helped Bush win reelection</a>, while Republicans picked up seats in both the House and Senate.</p>
<h2>A political change</h2>
<p>The legal and political landscape on same-sex marriage <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/24/same-sex-marriage-timeline/29173703/">became much more liberal</a> in the years following 2004. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/prop-8-passed-california-gay-marriage">In 2008,</a> state courts in California and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/nyregion/11marriage.html">Connecticut struck down</a> bans on same-sex marriage. <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gaymarriage-vermont/vermont-becomes-4th-u-s-state-to-allow-gay-marriage-idUSTRE53648V20090407">Vermont became</a> the first state in 2009 to pass legislation and legalize same-sex marriage.</p>
<p>A major national shift occurred in 2012 <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-biden-forced-hand-on-same-sex-marriage-but-alls-well/">when then-Vice President Joe Biden</a> and President Barack Obama openly supported same-sex marriage. This was a major change for both men. <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/22/politics/marriage-equality-congress-evolution/index.html">Biden had voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act</a>in 1996. <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/dissecting-president-obamas-evolution-gay-marriage/story?id=18792720">Obama publicly supported</a> marriage as being between a man and a woman in his 2004 senatorial campaign.</p>
<p>In 2015, the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-556">struck down</a> all national and state restrictions on same-sex marriage, making same-sex marriage the law of the land.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/476966/original/file-20220801-67954-kemfwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="The White House is shown at night, light up with rainbow colors." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/476966/original/file-20220801-67954-kemfwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/476966/original/file-20220801-67954-kemfwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/476966/original/file-20220801-67954-kemfwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/476966/original/file-20220801-67954-kemfwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/476966/original/file-20220801-67954-kemfwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/476966/original/file-20220801-67954-kemfwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/476966/original/file-20220801-67954-kemfwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Rainbow-colored lights shine on the White House after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in June 2015.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/rainbowcolored-lights-shine-on-the-white-house-to-celebrate-todays-us-picture-id478678270?s=2048x2048">Mark Wilson/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The Trump effect</h2>
<p>The lack of attention Trump paid to same-sex marriage is one factor that contributed to it becoming a less divisive issue. While Trump’s <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/24/absurb-claim-that-trump-is-most-pro-gay-president-american-history/">actual record on LBGTQ rights</a> generally aligns with conservative Christian values, Trump had said in 2016 that he was <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-same-sex-marriage-231310">“fine” with legalizing same-sex marriage</a>. </p>
<p>Still, despite the legality of same-sex marriage, many conservative Midwestern and Southern states <a href="https://www.hrc.org/resources/state-maps">deny other legal protections</a> to LBGTQ persons. Twenty-nine states still allow licensed professionals to conduct youth gay-conversion therapy, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/07/health/conversion-therapy-personal-and-financial-harm/index.html">a discredited process to convert LGBTQ people into no longer being queer</a>. </p>
<p>More than 20 states allow discrimination in <a href="https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/non_discrimination_laws">both housing</a> and public accommodations based on sexual orientation. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/476998/original/file-20220801-70473-f142qs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A woman holds up a sign that says 'every child deserves a mom and dad'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/476998/original/file-20220801-70473-f142qs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/476998/original/file-20220801-70473-f142qs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/476998/original/file-20220801-70473-f142qs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/476998/original/file-20220801-70473-f142qs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/476998/original/file-20220801-70473-f142qs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/476998/original/file-20220801-70473-f142qs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/476998/original/file-20220801-70473-f142qs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A woman participates in a protest in Washington after the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage in 2015.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/opponents-of-samesex-marriage-demonstrate-near-the-supreme-court-28-picture-id471432028?s=2048x2048">Drew Angerer/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Respect for marriage</h2>
<p>Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski, representing Alaska, are among <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3739118-these-12-gop-senators-voted-for-same-sex-marriage-bill/">the 12 moderate Republican politicians</a> who voted to advance the same-sex marriage bill.</p>
<p>“I have long supported marriage equality and believe all lawful marriages deserve respect,” Murkowski said in a statement on Nov. 16, 2022. “All Americans deserve dignity, respect and equal protection under the law.” </p>
<p>Some Republican leaders, though, have <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/22/us/politics/after-roe-republicans-sharpen-attacks-on-gay-and-transgender-rights.html">grown bolder </a>in their opposition to same-sex marriage since the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision. </p>
<p>These Republicans have said that codifying federal law same-sex marriage is <a href="https://www.vox.com/23274491/senate-republicans-same-sex-marriage-bill-respect-for-marriage-act">not necessary</a> since they don’t believe the Supreme Court is likely to overturn federal protections for same-sex marriage. </p>
<p>Democrats first moved to protect same-sex marriage in federal law because Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion in the Dobbs case that the court <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/thomas-constitutional-rights-00042256">should reconsider,</a> “all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” the latter being the case that legalized same-sex marriage.</p>
<p>But despite public opinion polls showing that most people favor legalizing same-sex marriage – including <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/311672/support-sex-marriage-matches-record-high.aspx">nearly half</a> of Republicans – the issue could still be a liability for Republican politicians. </p>
<p>Should the Senate approve the bill – it is to hold a final vote by the end of November 2022 – Republicans will then have to answer to their core conservative constituents who largely oppose the practice. <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3570528-same-sex-marriage-debate-poses-problems-for-republicans/">This could mean</a> that Senate Republicans may have to consider splitting from their own base, or stepping away from moderate voters. </p>
<p><em>This is an updated version of an <a href="https://theconversation.com/congress-is-considering-making-same-sex-marriage-federal-law-a-political-scientist-explains-how-this-issue-became-less-polarized-over-time-187509">article originally published on Aug. 2, 2022</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/194879/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Lindberg does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The U.S. Senate voted to advance a bill that protect same-sex marriage by a wide margin– thanks to support from 12 Republicans. Same-sex marriage isn’t the partisan issue it once was.Tim Lindberg, Assistant professor, political science , University of MinnesotaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1723862021-11-23T06:32:29Z2021-11-23T06:32:29ZThird time lucky? What has changed in the latest draft of the religious discrimination bill?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433372/original/file-20211123-15-ak3jx1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Morrison government has finally provided details of the third draft of its religious discrimination bill. This prompted <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/liberal-mps-express-concern-over-religious-freedom-bill-20211123-p59bcw.html">heated discussion</a> in a meeting of Coalition MPs on Tuesday, but Prime Minister Scott Morrison still wants to see the bill introduced in this final sitting fortnight of 2021. </p>
<p>What is the bill trying to do? What has changed since the last time we saw it? And will it be enough to satisfy the critics? </p>
<h2>Why do we have this bill?</h2>
<p>When same-sex marriage was legalised in late 2017, conservative religious groups were promised a “religious freedom” review as a consolation prize. That <a href="https://www.pmc.gov.au/domestic-policy/taskforces-past-domestic-policy-initiatives/religious-freedom-review">review</a>, led by former Liberal MP Phillip Ruddock, found Australia does not have a religious freedom problem, but did recommend new legislative protections against religious discrimination. In <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/government-response-religious-freedom-review">response</a>, in December 2018, the Morrison government promised a Religious Discrimination Act.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-debate-about-religious-discrimination-is-back-so-why-do-we-keep-hearing-about-religious-freedom-169643">The debate about religious discrimination is back, so why do we keep hearing about religious 'freedom'?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Former Attorney-General Christian Porter released a draft religious discrimination bill in <a href="https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/consultations/religious-freedom-bills-first-exposure-drafts">late 2019</a> and a <a href="https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/consultations/religious-freedom-bills-second-exposure-drafts">second draft</a> in early 2020. </p>
<p>Both were <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/30/this-bill-is-friendless-chris-bowen-signals-labor-could-vote-against-religious-freedom-bill">roundly criticised</a>. Human rights groups complained the bill weakened other human rights protections and created a licence to discriminate. Conservative groups complained it did not give adequate protections to people of faith.</p>
<h2>What’s in the third draft?</h2>
<p>Current Attorney-General Michaelia Cash’s third draft is effectively in two parts. </p>
<p>The first part is a legal “shield” protecting people from being discriminated against on the basis of their religion or lack of religion. This isn’t really controversial, as it simply adds religious discrimination to the existing suite of federal race, sex (also covering LGBTQIA+ status), disability and age discrimination laws. All states and territories, other than NSW and South Australia, already have laws prohibiting religious discrimination.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Protesters at an anti-religious discrimination bill rally in Sydney in 2019." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433374/original/file-20211123-19-xoguei.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433374/original/file-20211123-19-xoguei.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433374/original/file-20211123-19-xoguei.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433374/original/file-20211123-19-xoguei.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433374/original/file-20211123-19-xoguei.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433374/original/file-20211123-19-xoguei.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433374/original/file-20211123-19-xoguei.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">LGBTQIA+ advocates say the bill will lead to increased discrimination.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bianca De Marchi/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The second part of the bill is a more of a legal “sword” and is more controversial. </p>
<p>Some of the controversial features of earlier drafts, such as the ability of healthcare providers to <a href="https://theconversation.com/governments-religious-discrimination-bill-enshrines-the-right-to-harm-others-in-the-name-of-faith-131206">refuse to provide treatment</a>, are gone. But the current draft still includes a range of provisions overriding federal, state and territory anti-discrimination laws to allow people to be discriminated against.</p>
<h2>The right to be a bigot</h2>
<p>Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the bill is the “statements of belief” provision. This provision overrides overrides every federal, state and territory anti-discrimination law to make “statements of belief” immune from legal consequences under those laws. </p>
<p>Statements of beliefs are things like comments from a boss to a female employee that “women should not hold leadership positions” or comments from a doctor to a patient that “disability is a punishment for sin”.</p>
<p>In order to gain immunity, the statement has to be a religious belief that the person genuinely considers to be in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of that religion. For non-religious people, the statement has to be of a belief that the person genuinely considers to relate to the fact of not holding a religious belief.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-morrison-gives-religious-discrimination-bill-priority-over-national-integrity-commission-172166">Grattan on Friday: Morrison gives religious discrimination bill priority over national integrity commission</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There are three limitations. A statement of belief will not be protected if it is malicious, if a reasonable person would consider the statement would threaten, intimidate, harass or vilify a person or group, or if the statement would promote or encourage the commission of an offence punishable by at least two years’ imprisonment.</p>
<p>This is an extraordinary departure from standard practice in federal anti-discrimination law. Standard practice is to ensure state and territory laws are not overridden.</p>
<p>This provision is bad for everyone. It will protect those who are nasty to Christians, as well as those who are nasty to LGBTQIA+ people, women or people with disabilities.</p>
<p>One key change from previous drafts is statements that intimidate will not be protected. Earlier drafts only excluded “serious intimidation”.</p>
<h2>A mini Folau clause</h2>
<p>Earlier drafts of the bill also included the so-called “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/16/coalition-waters-down-religious-discrimination-bill-by-scrapping-folau-clause">Folau clause</a>”, named after the incident in which Israel Folau parted ways with Rugby Australia as a result of comments he posted on social media about gay people. That clause would have made it unlawful for employers to have codes of conduct that limit a person’s ability to make statements of belief. This provision is gone in the current draft.</p>
<p>But there is still a mini Folau clause. Qualifying bodies (like a medical board) that licence professions and occupations are banned from setting professional conduct rules that prohibit making statements of belief, unless compliance with the rule is an essential requirement of the profession, trade or occupation. </p>
<p>So while an employer can discipline an employee for making a statement of belief, a professional association cannot.</p>
<h2>‘Preferencing’ with hiring</h2>
<p>The bill would mean it is not religious discrimination for bodies such as religious schools, hospitals or aged care facilities to seek to preserve a “religious ethos” among staff by making faith-based decisions in relation to employment. </p>
<p>For example, a Catholic hospital would be able to have a Catholics-only hiring policy. The bill simply requires religious bodies to have publicly available policies if they want to take advantage of this rule.</p>
<p>The bill specifically overrides state and territory anti-discrimination laws to ensure that such “preferencing” in employment is allowed in religious schools, even in those states where this is unlawful. </p>
<h2>Constitutional concerns</h2>
<p>There are some complex constitutional issues with the bill. Here are three of them:</p>
<p>First, federal parliament might not have constitutional power to enact all parts of the bill. The government says it is relying on the “external affairs power”, which allows federal parliament to pass laws implementing treaty obligations, like article 18 of the <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx">International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights</a> about the right to freedom of thought, conscience and belief.</p>
<p>But <a href="https://undocs.org/A/HRC/37/49">international human rights</a> law is clear that religious freedom cannot be used to interfere with other rights, which is exactly what some parts of the bill do. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Interior of Catholic cathedral." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433375/original/file-20211123-21-1v0dx6m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433375/original/file-20211123-21-1v0dx6m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433375/original/file-20211123-21-1v0dx6m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433375/original/file-20211123-21-1v0dx6m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433375/original/file-20211123-21-1v0dx6m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433375/original/file-20211123-21-1v0dx6m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433375/original/file-20211123-21-1v0dx6m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Some religious groups have been pushing for a stronger bill, warning they are left vulnerable to claims of discrimination through practising their faith.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Tracey Nearmy/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Second, overriding state laws throws the state tribunal systems into an unholy mess. State anti-discrimination cases are usually heard by state tribunals, which are quicker and cheaper than courts. But for constitutional reasons, state tribunals cannot consider federal laws. </p>
<p>If the bill passes, many state anti-discrimination cases will now also involve the federal “statement of belief” exemption, which means these cases will need to be heard by a court. Because court cases are very expensive, it is likely many of these cases simply won’t happen and people who have been discriminated against will be left without a remedy.</p>
<p>Third, the “statement of belief” provision overriding state and territory laws appears to change definitions in those laws rather than simply overriding the operation of those laws. While federal parliament has the power to override the operation of state laws, it does not have power to amend or change the content of those laws.</p>
<h2>Where to from here?</h2>
<p>Recent indications are the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/nov/23/scott-morrison-promises-senate-inquiry-to-calm-fears-over-religious-discrimination-bill">bill will be referred</a> to a Senate inquiry – as per the normal process for an important piece of legislation. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Attorney-General Michaelia Cash." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433376/original/file-20211123-27-1ozxaa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433376/original/file-20211123-27-1ozxaa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433376/original/file-20211123-27-1ozxaa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433376/original/file-20211123-27-1ozxaa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433376/original/file-20211123-27-1ozxaa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433376/original/file-20211123-27-1ozxaa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/433376/original/file-20211123-27-1ozxaa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Attorney-General Michaelia Cash has charge of the controversial bill.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If that happens, there’s almost no chance of a vote on the bill this year and the heated debate will continue. </p>
<p>But given the ongoing complexities and far-reaching consequences of the bill a proper Senate investigation is essential.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/172386/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Luke Beck is a member of the Australian Labor Party and is on the board of the Rationalist Society of Australia Inc. This article reflects only his personal views.</span></em></p>The Coalition has provided details of the third draft of its controversial bill.Luke Beck, Associate Professor of Constitutional Law, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1658002021-08-10T01:44:35Z2021-08-10T01:44:35ZLGBTIQ+ people are being ignored in the census again. Not only is this discriminatory, it’s bad public policy<p>“Do you know how many LGBTIQ+ folks live in Australia? It turns out no one does, and we’re not about to find out in the upcoming census.” </p>
<p>Courtney Act, an Australian drag queen and television personality, <a href="https://m.facebook.com/EqualityAustralia/videos/187949036711096/?refsrc=deprecated&locale2=ne_NP&_rdr">made this point</a> on Facebook last week as part of Equality Australia’s push to have LGBTIQ+ people counted in the census. </p>
<p>Once again, the census is failing to accurately collect data on sex, sexual orientation and gender diversity.</p>
<p>The census ticks around every five years to provide a snapshot of who we are and how we are changing. It is not just about collecting statistics about where we live, who we live with, our work, lives, income and health, but it also provides crucial insights to inform the vital services that Australians need. </p>
<p>We cannot effectively support all of Australia if we do not count all of Australia (and it’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-need-to-count-lgbti-communities-in-the-next-census-heres-why-124769">not the first time we’ve argued this too</a>). </p>
<p>Currently, we do not understand how many people identify as LGBTIQ+, where they are, or anything about their socioeconomic status, health, relationships and more. </p>
<p>It is a matter of serious concern, particularly given LGBTIQ+ folk often face <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/lgbtihealth/pages/549/attachments/original/1620871703/2021_Snapshot_of_Mental_Health2.pdf?1620871703">higher suicide and mental health concerns</a> and worrying rates of <a href="https://www.dvrcv.org.au/sites/default/files/Family-violence-in-an-LGBTIQ-context-Kate-OHalloran.pdf">domestic violence</a>. LGBTIQ+ people also have unique needs when it comes to the provision of services, from health to housing and beyond. </p>
<p>As Amnesty International <a href="https://www.amnesty.org.au/lgbtqia-australians-have-been-left-out-of-the-2021-census/">notes</a>, the census’s lack of appropriate questions capturing LGBTIQ+ communities and experiences “will result in a service gap that constitutes discrimination of the LGBTQIA+ community”.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1422747933343113220"}"></div></p>
<h2>So, what was supposed to be asked?</h2>
<p>In <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/publications/tabledpapers/0d17ec78-cb05-40e1-81bf-990299e32d4d/upload_pdf/OPD%20219%20gender.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22senate%20orders%22">a submission to the Senate in 2019</a>, questions around sexuality and gender identity were proposed for inclusion in the 2021 census. These were developed in consultation with LGBTIQ+ communities, and can generally be seen as best practice. </p>
<p>Then the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) walked away from them. Why?</p>
<p>The ABS voted against these new questions due to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/dec/03/abs-said-census-questions-on-gender-and-sexual-orientation-risked-public-backlash">perceived public backlash</a> - particularly after some of the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-09/abs-website-inaccessible-on-census-night/7711652">technical difficulties of the 2016 #censusfail</a>. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1424545411394523136"}"></div></p>
<p>The decision came after assistant treasurer Michael Sukkar <a href="https://qnews.com.au/minister-under-fire-after-lgbtiq-census-questions-dropped/">expressed “a preference”</a> about not including the questions in testing, David Kalisch, the former Australian statistician, said in 2019. </p>
<p>This is despite the fact that in qualitative testing of census questions, those on gender and sexuality “<a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/publications/tabledpapers/0d17ec78-cb05-40e1-81bf-990299e32d4d/upload_pdf/OPD%20219%20gender.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22senate%20orders%22">performed well</a>” with both target and non-target populations. These draft questions were also recommended by multiple federal departments. </p>
<p>And, in 2019 Senate submission documents, the ABS itself noted there are “no other suitable alternative data sources” to collect such crucial information. It also identified data on LGBTIQ+ communities as “<a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/publications/tabledpapers/0d17ec78-cb05-40e1-81bf-990299e32d4d/upload_pdf/OPD%20219%20gender.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22senate%20orders%22">of current national importance</a>”.</p>
<p>It’s also despite the fact that the majority of Australians voted for marriage equality, and Australia has generally taken more progressive steps towards gender and sexuality inclusion in the last few years.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/census-2021-is-almost-here-whats-changed-since-censusfail-whats-at-stake-in-this-pandemic-survey-164784">Census 2021 is almost here — what's changed since #censusfail? What's at stake in this pandemic survey?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What’s being asked instead?</h2>
<p>Nothing in this year’s census asks specifically about sexuality. The question on gender identity and sex has also conflates the concepts — <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-difference-between-sex-and-gender-and-why-both-matter-in-health-research-162746#:%7E:text=The%20term%20sex%20is%20generally,men%20and%20gender%2Ddiverse%20people.">despite international efforts to address the issue</a>.</p>
<p>Although some of the questions on cohabitation and families make it possible to garner some data on people in same-sex relationships, only those who are couples and who live together are counted. </p>
<p>The question about sex/gender limits choices to male/female/non-binary sex. It obscures data on transgender and intersex folk and does not recognise differences in gender identity (how a person sees themselves or the social/cultural aspects of identity) and sex (a person’s anatomy or biological sex characteristics). </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1421017995686473729"}"></div></p>
<p>Further, question 37 erases the experience of some trans people entirely. It asks, “for each female, how many babies has she ever given birth to?”. This blatantly ignores the fact that many transmen (often those who have transitioned from female to male) <a href="https://7news.com.au/news/social/medicare-figures-show-dozens-of-australian-men-are-now-giving-birth-every-year-c-389349">can and have given birth</a>.</p>
<p>While the census has included questions around other identity categories, including race, ethnic ancestry, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and people living with a disability, LGBTIQ+ remains overlooked — and without good reason.</p>
<h2>How does Australia compare globally?</h2>
<p>There’s a major gap globally in the inclusion of these data on national census questionnaires.</p>
<p>Much was made of the hasty withdrawal of questions relating to gender and sexuality in the <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/lgbtq-americans-won-t-be-counted-2020-u-s-census-n739911">2020 US census</a>, a move that was highly scrutinised in the political pressure cooker of the Trump administration. </p>
<p>In a country where federal marriage equality was achieved in 2015, millions of LGBTIQ+ Americans will now have to wait until 2030 (at least) to contribute their experiences to the US census. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"847185547403689984"}"></div></p>
<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/oct/18/census-to-ask-about-sexual-orientation-for-the-first-time">In the UK</a>, voluntary questions on sexual orientation and gender identity will be asked this year in England and Wales, and in Scotland in 2022. </p>
<p>Yet, in general, a <a href="https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/dbbb7a05-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/dbbb7a05-en">2019 report</a> noted only a few nationally representative surveys contained questions on LGBTIQ+ identity in the OECD, and none (at that stage) included them in the census. </p>
<h2>Why the census has failed us</h2>
<p>Determining whom and what is counted has always been part of census history — a history that has not always been neutral or fair. In fact, the census has often ignored or marginalised various communities for socio-political reasons. </p>
<p>For instance, <a href="https://guides.slv.vic.gov.au/earlycensus/history">while population counts began with colonisation around 1788</a> and the first census (as we know it, of people in dwellings) occurred in 1828, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs%40.nsf/mediareleasesbyCatalogue/E31B62F372FC7BCECA2581320029DC01#:%7E:text=On%20Saturday%2027%20May%2C%20Australia,beginning%20with%20the%201971%20Census.">only fully included in the census in 1971</a>, almost two centuries later.</p>
<p>Longstanding structural racism and discrimination help explain the census’s historic incomplete data collection on First Nations people. Does the same hold true for the modern census’s approach to LGBTIQ+ communities? </p>
<p>Perhaps. Given there was strong evidence, arguments and testing around new questions on gender and sexuality in the census, it seems the ABS’s willful ignorance towards LGBTIQ+ people can only be justified by political conservatism and discrimination. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/its-time-to-talk-about-gay-reparations-and-how-they-can-rectify-past-persecutions-of-lgbtq-people-162086">It's time to talk about gay reparations and how they can rectify past persecutions of LGBTQ people</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Although LGBTIQ+ people have more reason than most to be wary of the quantitative collection of sensitive data, it still desperately needs to be collected. </p>
<p>Inclusion of targeted questions on gender and sexuality also requires greater assurances around data integrity — a particular concern of older members of the LGBTIQ+ community who lived through the <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/pride/agenda/article/2016/08/12/definitive-timeline-lgbt-rights-australia">criminalisation of homosexuality</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/witch-hunts-and-surveillance-the-hidden-lives-of-queer-people-in-the-military-76156">lesbian witch hunts, surveillance</a> and <a href="https://qnews.com.au/australian-lgbtiq-history-timeline-the-20th-century/">other related trauma</a>.</p>
<p>Ultimately, not only is the lack of recognition <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/it-s-time-we-counted-census-makes-lgbtiq-people-invisible-20210805-p58fzx.html">distressing for many LGBTIQ+ people, it is also bad public policy</a>. Australia needs reliable, informed data on sex, sexual orientation and gender identity. Without it, the census is too risk-averse to even be accurate. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>This story has been updated to correct that the next US census is in 2030, not 2025.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/165800/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Despite the ABS itself saying that collecting data on LGBTIQ+ communities is of ‘national importance’, these questions have been left off the census again — for no good reason.Elise Stephenson, Postdoctoral Research Fellow of the Policy Innovation Hub, Griffith UniversityJack Hayes, Researcher, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1651692021-08-05T20:09:53Z2021-08-05T20:09:53ZA ‘Christian nation’ no longer: why Australia’s religious right loses policy battles even when it wins elections<p>Conservative Christians are prominent in Australia’s Liberal-National Coalition parties. Scott Morrison and Tony Abbott are two of the most <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/27/scott-morrison-is-a-pentecostal-but-he-doesnt-need-believers-like-trump-does">devout</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/lets-be-clear-on-tony-abbotts-attacks-on-abortion-10263">theologically conservative</a> prime ministers in Australian history.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2021/06/26/how-the-religious-right-trying-take-over-the-liberal-party/162462960011952">State</a> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jul/06/christian-soldiers-and-climate-deniers-inside-the-fight-for-control-of-the-queensland-lnp">Coalition parties</a> <a href="https://www.afr.com/politics/liberal-survivor-puts-spotlight-on-right-wing-churches-20210315-p57au7">have had</a> <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/conservative-christian-plot-to-take-control-of-nsw-liberal-party-20190807-p52evl.html">influxes</a> of <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/the-religious-minority-seizing-power-in-the-liberal-party-20180601-p4ziyq.html">religious conservatives</a> as the Coalition <a href="https://www.eternitynews.com.au/australia/can-christian-political-parties-survive/">absorbs</a> Christian parties and their voters. At the same time, the Christian right is suffering major defeats on its biggest issues. </p>
<p>Since 2018, <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/abortion-has-been-decriminalised-in-queensland/cc85e428-90a1-42f2-9156-87f0249c00f7">Queensland</a>, <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/abortion-has-been-decriminalised-in-nsw-and-here-s-what-will-actually-change/fa9150ff-295f-432e-9361-4dad576f3d0a">New South Wales</a> and <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/historic-day-for-women-as-abortion-officially-decriminalised-in-south-australia">South Australia</a> have all liberalised their abortion laws. This happened under Coalition governments in NSW and SA, to the dismay of some conservatives. Abbott and Barnaby Joyce <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-15/tony-abbott-tells-rally-abortion-laws-are-effecively-infanticide/11514890">appeared at protests</a> against the NSW laws. Morrison <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/scott-morrison-a-conservative-on-abortion/6767a1b4-a32d-4822-b9e4-4cc71afa5aea">declined to get involved</a>, despite his “conservative” views on abortion.</p>
<p>In the 2017 postal survey on marriage equality, only <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2017/November/Australian_Marriage_Law_Postal_Survey_map">five of the Coalition’s 76 federal seats</a> saw majorities vote “no”. The law subsequently passed <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-08/same-sex-marriage-who-didnt-vote/9240584">with the support of most Coalition MPs</a>.</p>
<p>In a <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09637494.2021.1946344">new article</a> in Religion, State and Society, I examine why Australian Christian conservatives are losing policy battles even when they win elections. Compared to the <a href="https://www.christianitytoday.com/scot-mcknight/2020/august/lets-talk-about-christian-nationalism.html">United States</a>, Australia does not have a strong link between Christianity and nationalism. I show that, if anything, the concept of Australia as a “Christian nation” has declined over the past decade. This makes it harder for religious traditionalism to piggyback on the electoral success of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/17/australians-are-asking-how-did-we-get-here-well-islamophobia-is-practically-enshrined-as-public-policy?CMP=share_btn_tw&fbclid=IwAR2GXTs83zEY3EX0LLQhNPzpYGSc7vv3XRMXaiIWGnw9VEjatJSbOGCRfvw">exclusionary nationalism</a>.</p>
<h2>The rise and fall of the Christian right</h2>
<p>Religious adherence is <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2071.0%7E2016%7EMain%20Features%7EReligion%20Data%20Summary%7E70">declining</a> in Australia, but this doesn’t necessarily mean the end of religious influence in politics. </p>
<p>In her book <a href="https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691164755/nations-under-god">Nations Under God</a>, Anna Grzymala-Busse shows religious groups can continue to shape policy even in countries where people are averse to their involvement in politics. They can do this when they are seen as being “above politics”. Religious figures are powerful when they appear to be giving non-partisan guidance to political figures, legitimised by a strong relationship between church and nation.</p>
<p>Australia’s history has not created the kind of fusion between Christianity and nationalism that we see in places like Poland or the United States. But during the <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10361140601158526">prime ministership of John Howard</a>, politicians <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10361140902862784">increasingly blended Christianity</a> into a <a href="https://www.monash.edu/arts/philosophical-historical-international-studies/eras/past-editions/edition-seven-2005-november/god-under-howard-the-rise-of-the-religious-right-in-australian-politics-by-marion-maddox">conservative vision of the Australian nation</a>. This in turn created a favourable environment for religious influence.</p>
<p>In a 2014 article, <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/1462317X13Z.00000000071">Marion Maddox</a> described the success of the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) in Canberra. Howard brought the ACL to prominence by treating it as a “legitimate peak body” for Christianity. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/414459/original/file-20210804-24-y7bh9c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/414459/original/file-20210804-24-y7bh9c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/414459/original/file-20210804-24-y7bh9c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/414459/original/file-20210804-24-y7bh9c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/414459/original/file-20210804-24-y7bh9c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=466&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/414459/original/file-20210804-24-y7bh9c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=466&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/414459/original/file-20210804-24-y7bh9c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=466&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Despite having a devoutly Christian prime minister, the role of the Christian right in Australia has waned in recent years.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The ACL’s political access continued under Labor prime ministers Kevin Rudd and <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/religion/it-seems-the-real-julia-cant-ignore-the-christian-lobby/10102190">Julia Gillard</a>.
At a <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-08-10/howard-rudd-woo-christians-online/636110">2007 ACL conference</a>, Rudd and Howard both spoke, with Rudd describing how his Christian beliefs gave him a unifying vision for the nation. </p>
<p>Gillard, raised Baptist but a self-described atheist, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/review-missed-opportunity-to-separate-church-and-state-20130117-2cuoc.html">held private meetings</a> on anti-discrimination laws with ACL leader Jim Wallace. In a 2011 interview, Gillard <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-03-22/social_conservative_julia3a_which_is_the_real_one_now3f/45392">described herself</a> as a “cultural traditionalist” who believed it was important for people to understand the Bible because “the Bible has formed such an important part of our culture”. As prime minister, Gillard <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-21/rudd27s-gay-marriage-decison-puts-him-at-odds-with-gillard/4702928">opposed</a> same-sex marriage. </p>
<p>Maddox warned that Australians had failed to recognise the “extremist” right-wing nature of the ACL. It successfully presented itself as “middle of the road” politically, theologically and culturally. In reality, it represented a small, ultraconservative slice of mostly neo-Pentecostal Christianity.</p>
<p>Even at the peak of the Christian right’s power, political scientists noted its <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3765154.htm">electoral</a> and <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10361146.2011.595387">policy</a> <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10361140903296545">limitations</a>. Abbott’s 2013 election victory didn’t help it. His ascendancy hardened “<a href="https://ipa.org.au/ipa-review-articles/tony-abbotts-culture-challenge">culture war</a>” divisions, limiting the influence of Christian conservatives to <a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-christian-lobby-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-religious-right-60624">the Coalition side of politics</a>. Labor <a href="https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6076831/bill-shorten-tells-christian-lobby-he-supports-same-sex-marriage/">stopped courting</a> conservative Christian votes, despite having <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/nov/15/dastyari-high-number-of-no-votes-in-labor-seats-shows-huge-disconnect">conservative Christian voters</a>. </p>
<p>The Coalition could form electoral majorities, but was itself <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/f793f132-96f8-11e7-b83c-9588e51488a0">divided</a> on the big “<a href="https://australianelectionstudy.org/wp-content/uploads/Sheppard-Moral-politics-2016-AQSPS.pdf">moral</a>” issues where conservatives are in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/same-sex-marriage-results-crush-the-idea-that-australian-voters-crave-conservatism-87316">minority</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/same-sex-marriage-results-crush-the-idea-that-australian-voters-crave-conservatism-87316">Same-sex marriage results crush the idea that Australian voters crave conservatism</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>From ‘Christian nation’ to ‘religious freedom’</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/11/australians-are-very-skeptical-michael-kirby-warns-against-excessive-protection-of-religious-freedoms">Critics of religious influence</a> see ominous signs in the Morrison government’s <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/right-wing-backlash-church-group-to-make-religious-freedom-an-election-issue-20210602-p57xce.html">push</a> for a <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-31/religious-freedom-draft-bill-may-prove-morrisons-toughest-test/11466242">religious freedom bill</a>. They warn such legislation will carve out spaces for <a href="https://theconversation.com/governments-religious-discrimination-bill-enshrines-the-right-to-harm-others-in-the-name-of-faith-131206">religious groups to discriminate</a>. But the shift to a religious freedom agenda also marks a retreat of religious power in Australian life.</p>
<p>As Carol Johnson and Marion Maddox <a href="https://theconversation.com/talk-of-same-sex-marriage-impinging-on-religious-freedom-is-misconceived-heres-why-82435">point out</a>, Australia’s biggest churches used to oppose efforts to expand religious freedom. They did so from a position of majority dominance, worried that efforts to protect minorities could lead to stricter separation of church and state. </p>
<p>In 2008, the Human Rights Commission conducted the Freedom of Religion and Belief in Australia Inquiry. An <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.1839-4655.2012.tb00250.x">analysis</a> found 40% of public submissions included the “assertion that Australia is a Christian nation”. That assertion is much rarer today.</p>
<p>Even large churches are now conscious of being in a national minority on issues like marriage and sexuality. In 2017 the Turnbull government announced a <a href="https://pmc.gov.au/domestic-policy/religious-freedom-review">Religious Freedom Review</a> in response to <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-13/religious-freedom-debate-does-little-to-help-malcolm-turnbulll/9989314">conservative worries</a> about the <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/marriage/pages/1839/attachments/original/1505496213/Consequences-_Changing_the_Law_on_Marriage_Affects_Everyone.pdf?1505496213">implications of changing marriage laws</a>. In my analysis of the 15,500 <a href="https://www.pmc.gov.au/domestic-policy/religious-freedom-review/review-submissions">public submissions</a> to the review, I found just four assertions that Australia is a Christian nation or country.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/414457/original/file-20210804-22-1lowfoo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/414457/original/file-20210804-22-1lowfoo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/414457/original/file-20210804-22-1lowfoo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/414457/original/file-20210804-22-1lowfoo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/414457/original/file-20210804-22-1lowfoo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/414457/original/file-20210804-22-1lowfoo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/414457/original/file-20210804-22-1lowfoo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Former prime minister Tony Abbott has referred to Australian society as ‘relentlessly secular’.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Joel Carrett/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The term “Christian nation” was used 101 unique times across print media (in reference to Australia) from the beginning of 2016 to the end of 2020. It appears to be in decline as a term. It appeared 35 times in 2016, 34 times in 2017 (the year of the same-sex marriage referendum), 16 times in 2018, 7 times in 2019 and 8 times in 2020. Furthermore, nearly half the times it was mentioned, it was by someone refuting the claim that Australia is a Christian nation.</p>
<p>When Australians do refer to their country as “Christian”, they are usually talking about heritage, rituals, holidays and census numbers. These may involve <a href="http://pcs.mcmasterdivinity.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/4.PCS_.25-74-Goroncy.pdf">implied racial boundaries</a>. </p>
<p>But Australians generally lack the classic ingredients of true religious nationalism: a sense of being “<a href="https://networks.h-net.org/node/10670/reviews/11100/hexham-smith-chosen-peoples-sacred-sources-national-identity">chosen</a>” by God or of a <a href="https://tif.ssrc.org/2010/01/08/a-neo-weberian-theory-of-american-civil-religion/">sacred covenant</a> between God and the nation. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-religion-rises-and-falls-in-modern-australia-74367">How religion rises – and falls – in modern Australia</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Many of Australia’s devoutly Christian politicians <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/left-behind-progressive-australians-reluctance-to-talk-religion-20170616-gwsmv6.html">don’t like</a> calling Australia a Christian nation. Indeed, Abbott once described Australia as “<a href="https://www.cathnews.com/archives/cath-news-archive/11098-pope-to-be-seen-but-not-heard-abbott">relentlessly secular</a>”. I can find no record of Morrison publicly calling Australia a Christian nation or country. The last prime minister to do so was Malcolm Turnbull, who <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/opinion/welcome-mr-netanyahu-the-first-israeli-pm-to-visit-australia/news-story/047d61e185967150349c6f93cc1831eb">described</a> Australia as a “majority Christian nation” sharing a biblical heritage with Israel. </p>
<p>The debate around religious freedom reflects a new concept of religious traditionalists as minorities requiring protection. It also reframes religious alliances in terms of <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-social-conservatism-among-ethnic-communities-drove-a-strong-no-vote-in-western-sydney-87509">multiculturalism</a> and <a href="https://freedomforfaith.org.au/articles/ruddock-review-submission-protecting-diversity/">diversity</a>. </p>
<p>Conservative religious actors will fight to protect their existing <a href="https://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiry/review-into-the-framework-of-religious-exemptions-in-anti-discrimination-legislation/">privileges</a> and will try to carve out <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/liberal-mps-want-folau-s-law-removed-from-religious-discrimination-bill-20210722-p58c25.html">new ones</a>. But they are no longer in a position to bring Australian society into line with their beliefs.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/165169/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Smith does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Those on the Christian right in Australia once wielded considerable clout, but they are no longer in a position to bring the majority of Australians in line with their views.David Smith, Associate Professor in American Politics and Foreign Policy, US Studies Centre, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1605142021-06-15T12:23:36Z2021-06-15T12:23:36ZFriends are saying ‘I do’ – but might not understand the legal risks of their platonic marriages<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406152/original/file-20210614-77865-zda7im.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=263%2C6%2C3914%2C2661&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Since there’s no romantic relationship, judges are likely to default to ruling that platonic marriages are an attempt to game the system.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/wedding-cake-with-statuettes-of-two-women-is-seen-during-news-photo/81102220?adppopup=true">Gabriel Bouys/AFP via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When a couple decides to tie the knot, they’ll often say they’re marrying their best friend. </p>
<p>But what if two actual best friends – no sex or even romantic feelings involved – just decided to get married? </p>
<p>Friends, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/01/fashion/weddings/from-best-friends-to-platonic-spouses.html">The New York Times reported</a> in 2021, are starting to “marry in a platonic fashion, swearing never to leave each other for better or for worse.” </p>
<p>These “nonconjugal couples” – mutually supportive relationships of friends or relatives that lack a sexual component – are powerfully challenging dominant social and legal norms around what constitutes family.</p>
<p>I’ve recently written about how these <a href="https://www.bloomsburyprofessional.com/uk/legal-recognition-of-non-conjugal-families-9781509939954/">nontraditional couples could one day gain legal recognition</a> – and thus tax breaks and couple benefits – in the courtrooms of the U.S., Canada and Europe. </p>
<p>But legal recognition, as of today, doesn’t exist. So there are risks in saying “I do” to a friend. </p>
<h2>The legal pitfalls of platonic marriages</h2>
<p>Two friends can get married for a host of reasons. </p>
<p>They might not believe in the traditional heterosexual family and wish to challenge it. They might simply think that their best friend is the person they want to share chores, meals and finances with. Or they might also believe that, as law-abiding taxpayers, they should also be able to receive the <a href="https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html">family benefits</a> that other married couples receive, like filing their tax returns jointly.</p>
<p>At the moment, though, friendship is not recognized by law. And only a handful of states allow friends to gain legal recognition through registration as domestic partners. These include <a href="https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1216&context=mjgl">Maine, Maryland</a> and <a href="https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/777/documents/MarriageCivilUnions/Designated%20Beneficiary%20Agreement.pdf">Colorado</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406153/original/file-20210614-66119-1qt2q47.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Statuettes of two men in tuxedos adorn the top of a wedding cake." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406153/original/file-20210614-66119-1qt2q47.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406153/original/file-20210614-66119-1qt2q47.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406153/original/file-20210614-66119-1qt2q47.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406153/original/file-20210614-66119-1qt2q47.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406153/original/file-20210614-66119-1qt2q47.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1134&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406153/original/file-20210614-66119-1qt2q47.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1134&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406153/original/file-20210614-66119-1qt2q47.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1134&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It’s pretty easy for two friends to get married – they just can’t admit that they’re only friends.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/in-this-photo-illustration-same-sex-statues-adorn-the-top-news-photo/56334631?adppopup=true">Christopher Furlong/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>However, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf">any two consenting adults</a> – regardless of their genders – can get married in the U.S. Two friends, therefore, can pretty easily pull it off. But they can’t admit that they’re only friends. </p>
<p>Legally speaking, it could be seen as a sham marriage.</p>
<p>For this reason, two friends who tie the knot and receive a marriage certificate can still face considerable risks. They expose themselves to criminal sanctions and civil penalties on grounds of “marriage fraud” if a federal or state agency becomes suspicious of the union. And they may also be denied benefits usually granted to married couples. </p>
<p>Kerry Abrams, the current dean of Duke University School of Law, <a href="https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/3818/">has outlined different doctrines</a> developed in welfare law, social security law and immigration law over the course of the 20th century to specifically detect fake or sham marriages. Whether it’s two people tying the knot so one can gain citizenship, seeking to obtain <a href="https://cite.case.law/mj/74/525/">a housing allowance</a> or getting married ahead of a trial <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/344/604">so they can’t be forced to testify against one another</a>, the conclusions of the courts are the same: Their marriage is a sham, and the individuals expose themselves to criminal or civil liability and a termination of benefits.</p>
<p>Detecting a sham marriage isn’t easy. And courts acknowledge that there are many reasons that may motivate a person’s decision to marry that aren’t “romantic,” such as a desire to file income jointly to gain tax exemptions.</p>
<p>Therefore, courts look at whether there is what they call a “specific illicit purpose.” As <a href="https://cite.case.law/mj/74/525/">a judge wrote in his ruling</a> in a case about a couple that fraudulently got married to gain a housing allowance: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“It is not the absence of a perfect or ideal ‘love, honor, and cherish’ motivation of the parties that renders the consequences flowing from the appellant’s actions in the case before us criminal; rather, it is the affirmative presence of a singularly focused illicit one – an intent to fraudulently acquire a government payment stream – that does so.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Two married friends will need to demonstrate before courts that they did not have a “singularly focused illicit” purpose of acquiring some sort of government benefit. But they’ll have a hard time doing so. That’s because when courts seek to understand whether the couple intended to live together as husband and wife, they’ll be assuming the family norm in which the couple has a sexual relationship. </p>
<p>Since there is no romantic relationship, judges will likely default to arguing that the friends got married only to game the system.</p>
<h2>Can the Constitution help?</h2>
<p>At the constitutional level, there is this one decision that might lend some hope to nonconjugal couples: <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/528/">Department of Agriculture v. Moreno</a>, also known as “the hippies case.”</p>
<p>The Moreno case concerned a group of impoverished, unrelated people living under the same roof who, at some point, were denied food stamps by the government. The government argued that its goal was fraud prevention: In its view, households with unrelated people – such as friends – are more likely to commit fraud to illegally obtain government benefits.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court, however, <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1972/72-534">ruled in favor of the household</a> in 1972. It concluded that minimizing fraud is a valid interest, but that the government could do so through other, more specific measures, instead of just denying benefits to a whole group of people. </p>
<p>However there are two problems with using this decision as a precedent for opening the door to allow two friends to marry. First, the outcome was largely driven by what the Supreme Court deemed the “cynical” motives of the legislature, which, in amending the law, had singled out “hippies” as undeserving of food stamps. Second, it isn’t about marriage, per se; it’s about who can gain access to one specific legal benefit: food stamps.</p>
<p>So I would argue that the constitutional decision that says something about the fate of platonic marriages is not Moreno, but <a href="https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=592919&p=4182205">Obergefell v. Hodges</a>, the Supreme Court judgment on same-sex marriage.</p>
<p>The idea of marriage Obergefell puts forth is one founded on rather traditional family norms. The plaintiffs in the Obergefell case – a gay couple – were, in every way aside from their same gender, congruent with what most Americans understand a married couple to be. Their relationship was sexual, exclusive, romantic, nuclear and involved two people. They were also committed to each other for life. </p>
<p>To show that same-sex marriage is a subset of the broader fundamental right to marry, <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556">LGBTQ litigators chose to reinforce preexisting norms</a> of marriage and family. They marshaled evidence showing that a gay or lesbian couple had the same ability to love, be intimate and raise children. Friends do not necessarily adhere to these norms: They are not intimate, and they are not necessarily interested in raising children, though <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/multimedia/raising-elaan-profoundly-disabled-boy-s-co-mommas-make-legal-history-1.3988464">some of them are</a>. </p>
<p>Ironically, it seems that LGBTQ activism has made it much harder for other nontraditional families to gain access to marriage. <a href="https://theconversation.com/polyamorous-relationships-under-severe-strain-during-the-pandemic-154335">Polyamorous and polygamous relationships</a> are among them. </p>
<p>And, yes, friends, too.</p>
<p>[<em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=youresmart">You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/160514/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nausica Palazzo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Because any two consenting adults can get married in the US, a platonic marriage could pretty easily be pulled off. Legally speaking, though, it’s a sham.Nausica Palazzo, Postdoctoral Fellow in Comparative Law, Hebrew University of JerusalemLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1582962021-05-06T12:30:16Z2021-05-06T12:30:16ZAnti-transgender bills are latest version of conservatives’ longtime strategy to rally their base<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/397963/original/file-20210429-23-1706lg0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=29%2C0%2C3806%2C3083&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A rally at the Alabama Statehouse on March 30, 2021, to draw attention to and protest anti-transgender legislation introduced in Alabama.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-rev-david-chatel-speaks-during-a-rally-at-the-alabama-news-photo/1232024622?adppopup=true">Julie Bennett/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>On April 6, 2021, despite Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson’s veto, <a href="https://www.ksla.com/2021/04/06/hutchinson-vetos-bill-that-would-have-banned-gender-confirming-treatments-minors/">Arkansas became the first state to prohibit</a> physicians from providing gender-affirming medical care like hormone treatments designed to delay puberty in transgender youth. So-called “<a href="https://www.stlouischildrens.org/conditions-treatments/transgender-center/puberty-blockers">puberty blockers</a>” are used to delay the physical changes associated with puberty and provide time for transgender young people to consider their options. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.denverpost.com/2021/04/18/transgender-treatment-bans-arkansas/">Arkansas physicians now face criminal penalties</a> if they prescribe puberty blockers or other forms of cross-gender health care to transgender youth. Twenty other states are considering similar bills. Some would classify puberty blockers and other gender-affirming medical treatments as <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2021/04/27/texas-senate-transgender-child-abuse/">child abuse</a> or would revoke the medical licenses of physicians prescribing these therapies.</p>
<p>These anti-transgender health care bills are part of a <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/15/politics/anti-transgender-legislation-2021/index.html">record number</a> of anti-transgender policy reforms that conservative legislators have introduced this year in state legislatures across the country. </p>
<p>These include bills that will bar transgender athletes from participating in student sports and <a href="https://apnews.com/article/parental-rights-gay-rights-arizona-gender-identity-sex-education-1f19f7a1aad2d2be7de934aa9807e9c6">mandate parental notification for a school curriculum</a> that is inclusive of LGBTQIA – lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning and/or queer, intersex and asexual – issues. One additional variety – <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/governor-approves-limiting-sex-change-birth-certificates-77429581">just signed into law</a> by Republican Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte – requires gender reassignment surgery before any individual can change the sex marker on their birth certificate. </p>
<p>So far, anti-transgender athlete bills have gained the most traction. Despite consistent <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/04/16/987765777/republicans-and-democrats-largely-oppose-transgender-sports-legislation-poll-sho">public opposition</a>, 30 states have now considered barring transgender athletes from playing on teams that match their gender identity. Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/03/29/982474861/south-dakota-governor-bans-transgender-girls-from-sports-teams-by-executive-orde">South Dakota</a> and Tennessee have already passed legislation, and <a href="https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/ten-anti-lgbtq-bills-sit-on-governors-desks-poised-to-undermine-rights-across-the-country">other states</a> are likely to follow. </p>
<p>As a civil rights scholar, I have found that campaigns that mischaracterize LGBTQIA-supportive policies as harmful to young people are a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2018.1441721">staple strategy</a> conservatives use to galvanize their base.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/397964/original/file-20210429-21-lw5psr.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Andrew Bostad, a transgender youth, sitting on the sofa at home with his mother and stepfather." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/397964/original/file-20210429-21-lw5psr.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/397964/original/file-20210429-21-lw5psr.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/397964/original/file-20210429-21-lw5psr.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/397964/original/file-20210429-21-lw5psr.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/397964/original/file-20210429-21-lw5psr.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/397964/original/file-20210429-21-lw5psr.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/397964/original/file-20210429-21-lw5psr.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Andrew Bostad, center, his mother, Brandi Evans, and stepdad, Jimmy Evans, at their home in Bauxite, Arkansas, on April 15, 2021. Andrew is one of hundreds of transgender youths in Arkansas who could have their hormone therapy cut off under a new state law.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/TransgenderYouthMedicalBan/0ebbbee2f72e43f29f4e24de9021f390/photo?Query=transgender%20AND%20youth&mediaType=photo&sortBy=creationdatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=104&currentItemNo=0">AP Photo/Andrew DeMillo</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>‘Save our Children’</h2>
<p>Anti-gay activist and Florida orange juice queen Anita Bryant first perfected the strategy in the 1970s to oppose ordinances prohibiting sexuality-based discrimination. Bryant’s “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1977/03/27/gay-rights-fight-shaping-up-in-miami/e4f596c1-f8e0-4785-b528-599077a478ba/">Save our Children</a>” campaign demonized gays and lesbians as “recruiting children.” Bryant successfully encouraged voters to oppose legislative attempts to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination and prompted Florida legislators to <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=132133&page=1">bar same-sex couples from adopting children</a>, a law that was <a href="https://www.eqfl.org/Adoption">later overturned</a> in 2010.</p>
<p>In the late 1990s and early 2000s, conservatives prompted over 40 states to bar same-sex marriage on the basis that <a href="https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190201159.001.0001/acprof-9780190201159">all children could be at risk</a> – those raised by same-sex couples and those introduced to marriage equality at school.</p>
<p>In 2015, when the Supreme Court overturned these bans in the landmark case <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/obergefell-v-hodges/">Obergefell v. Hodges</a>, conservatives began targeting transgender rights. </p>
<p>Conservatives again trained their focus on nondiscrimination measures – this time those prohibiting gender identity discrimination. They misleadingly argued that any measure protecting transgender individuals would place cisgender girls and women (individuals whose gender identity and birth-assigned sex are both female) at risk by <a href="https://www.charlotteobserver.com/living/health-family/article74652892.html">allowing men dressed as women</a> to use women’s locker rooms and restrooms. </p>
<p>There is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z">no evidence</a> supporting this claim. Yet there is <a href="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/transgender-teens-restricted-bathroom-access-sexual-assault/">significant evidence</a> of health and safety <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/without-federal-protections-trans-students-face-potential-health-crisis-n725156">risks to transgender students</a> if they are prohibited from using bathrooms that reflect their gender identity.</p>
<h2>Significant costs</h2>
<p>Anti-transgender athlete and health care bills follow a similar approach. Advocates for bills targeting transfemale athletes claim that transmale teammates will “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transgender-rights-biden-sports/2021/03/03/24d1645e-7c38-11eb-a976-c028a4215c78_story.html">ruin women’s sports forever</a>.” </p>
<p>Supporters of anti-trans health care bills claim that children are being pressured to employ these therapies, by physicians and parents, and <a href="https://khn.org/news/article/flurry-of-bills-aim-to-set-limits-on-transgender-kids-and-their-doctors/">describe the effects as permanent and scarring</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-arkansas-law-and-similar-bills-endanger-transgender-youth-research-shows/">There is little empirical evidence</a> to back up these assertions. Puberty blockers are an increasingly common treatment precisely because they provide a <a href="https://www.vox.com/2018/10/22/18009020/transgender-children-teens-transition-detransition-puberty-blocking-medication">reversible and less invasive</a> option for transgender adolescents and are provided only with the patient’s fully informed consent. Cross-gender hormone treatments (which are typically provided in later adolescence) are also <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-arkansas-law-and-similar-bills-endanger-transgender-youth-research-shows/">relatively low-risk</a>. </p>
<p>And there is little evidence to suggest that transgender female athletes are unfairly outcompeting their cisgender competitors – <a href="https://www.vox.com/identities/22334014/trans-athletes-bills-explained">particularly if they have been on puberty blockers</a>. In fact, conservative legislators have pointed to only one instance in their campaigns, when <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/04/15/transgender-athletes-womens-sports-title-ix/">two Black transfemale athletes</a> in Connecticut took first and second place in a 2017 statewide track tournament. Several cisgender female athletes who lost are suing state officials for permitting the transgender athletes to compete.</p>
<p>A far more common story is the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/lawmakers-unable-to-cite-local-trans-girls-sports-914a982545e943ecc1e265e8c41042e7">relative obscurity</a> of transgender athletes in women’s sports and their similarities with their cisgender teammates. <a href="https://www.northcarolinahealthnews.org/2021/04/09/amid-lgbtq-rights-debate-few-trans-kids-play-in-high-school-sports-in-nc/">Many of the states</a> considering the legislation have no known transfemale athletes or have transfemale athletes who are performing on par with cisfemale teammates. </p>
<p>And even the cisgender Connecticut athletes currently suing state officials <a href="https://www.courant.com/sports/high-schools/hc-sp-chelsea-mitchell-terry-miller-55-meter-dash-state-open-20200222-zdwb7shfbnfrxajs2hgmdwutbi-story.html">prevailed</a> in several championship races against their transgender competitors shortly after filing their lawsuit. </p>
<p>But none of this has prevented bill supporters from stoking fears.</p>
<p>We do know, however, that the <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/04/11/beyond-bathroom-report-shows-laws-harm-transgender-students/100265266/">bills will harm</a> transgender young people.</p>
<p>Prohibiting gender-affirming care like puberty blockers or barring transgender-inclusive athletic teams imposes <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/04/22/transgender-child-sports-treatments/">real and devastating risks on transgender youths</a>. Transgender people who do not have access to the kinds of hormone therapies that are being outlawed are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.02.051">four times more likely</a> than cisgender people to struggle with depression.</p>
<p>They are also <a href="https://www.ustranssurvey.org/reports#USTS">nine times</a> more likely than cisgender individuals to attempt suicide.</p>
<p>Put simply, gender-affirming policies and <a href="https://theconversation.com/im-a-pediatrician-who-cares-for-transgender-kids-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-social-support-puberty-blockers-and-other-medical-options-that-improve-lives-of-transgender-youth-157285">supportive health care therapies</a> are <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/puberty-blockers-linked-lower-suicide-risk-transgender-people-n1122101">lifesaving</a>. </p>
<p>Furthermore, if upheld in court, the athlete bills could require any female athlete to “prove” their gender to participate, potentially through <a href="https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/548534-floridas-new-ban-on-transgender-students-in-sports-would">invasive physical examinations</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/397965/original/file-20210429-21-f9nt1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A bus, painted with the words 'boys are boys' and 'girls are girls,' is parked on a Boston street." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/397965/original/file-20210429-21-f9nt1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/397965/original/file-20210429-21-f9nt1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/397965/original/file-20210429-21-f9nt1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/397965/original/file-20210429-21-f9nt1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/397965/original/file-20210429-21-f9nt1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/397965/original/file-20210429-21-f9nt1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/397965/original/file-20210429-21-f9nt1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The ‘Free Speech Bus,’ painted with the words ‘boys are boys’ and ‘girls are girls,’ is parked on a Boston street on March 30, 2017. A spokesman for the group behind the bus said organizers are pushing back against greater acceptance of transgender people.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/Anti-TransgenderBus/fb0141f0fc0e43e88340a604cabf5566/photo?Query=anti-transgender&mediaType=photo&sortBy=creationdatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=26&currentItemNo=9">AP Photo/Steven Senne</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Political landscape</h2>
<p>Conservatives may be using these bills – which some describe as “<a href="https://slate.com/human-interest/2021/03/anti-trans-bills-republicans-sports-bathroom-discrimination.html">erasing transgender youth</a>” – to catalyze Republican voters to participate in upcoming <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/05/gop-transgender-rights-women-sports-473746">midterm elections</a>. And the strategy could work. </p>
<p>Attempts to bar transgender athletes appeal to at least some <a href="https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/9/5/20840101/terfs-radical-feminists-gender-critical">self-described feminists</a>. And some high-profile women’s athletes have joined the fray. The <a href="https://womenssportspolicy.org/about-us/#mission">Women’s Sports Policy Working Group</a> convened in order to <a href="https://ctmirror.org/2019/07/22/transgender-issues-polarizes-womens-advocates-a-conundrum/">“protect”</a> cisgender female athletes. </p>
<p>Conservatives are also using anti-trans-athlete talking points to oppose the <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/02/24/969591569/house-to-vote-on-equality-act-heres-what-the-law-would-do">Equality Act</a>, a bill now circulating in the Senate that would add prohibitions against sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination to existing federal civil rights bills. The House passed a similar measure last year, but it failed to pass the Senate.</p>
<p>Transgender advocates have some recourse to fight the bills. <a href="https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-board-governors-statement-transgender-participation">Corporate backlash</a> is one option. Litigation is another. Advocates for transgender rights have secured <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/09/03/transgender-rights-supreme-court-win-propels-lower-court-victories/5647161002/">legal victories</a> in state and federal court challenges involving bathrooms and locker rooms. More recently a federal judge in Idaho blocked that state’s anti-<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/18/us/idaho-transgender-athletes-ban-blocked/index.html">transgender athletes</a> bill passed in 2020. </p>
<p>And the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/bostock-v-clayton-county-georgia/">Bostock v. Clayton County</a>, which protects LGBTQ individuals from certain forms of discrimination, seems at first blush to support transgender student equality. But the Bostock case is new, its application to sports and health care untested and political fervor is mounting. With a <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/26/politics/supreme-court-conservative/index.html">solid conservative majority</a> on the Supreme Court – and in <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/majority-of-u-s-appeals-courts-now-have-gop-appointed-edge">federal courts</a> across the country – legal battles are unreliable.</p>
<p>In the meantime, transgender young people across the country are contemplating a more uncertain and dangerous future. Some are working with their parents to <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/04/12/arkansas-trans-minors-law-endangers-lives-snubs-doctors-experts-say/7144794002/">find out-of-state sources</a> for puberty blockers. Others are contemplating <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/it-s-not-safe-parents-transgender-kids-plan-flee-their-n1264506">moves to less hostile</a> states. All of this because conservatives have channeled trumped-up claims into harmful legislation that outlaws transgender youths to further divide American voters.</p>
<p>[<em>The Conversation’s Politics + Society editors pick need-to-know stories.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/politics-weekly-74/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=politics-need-to-know">Sign up for Politics Weekly</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/158296/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alison Gash does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A civil rights scholar looks at the large number of anti-transgender policies being debated and passed in state capitols. They are a staple issue for conservatives who want to rally their base.Alison Gash, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of OregonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1278052021-02-03T19:00:21Z2021-02-03T19:00:21ZWhy is the Australian Christian Lobby waging a culture war over LGBTQ issues?<p>Martyn Iles is prepared to go to jail, along with (he claims) “half the Christians in Victoria”. The managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) says in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr8W8I14F7E&%3Blist=UUUkXAbO0Lms1wkx8k0RN2uA&%3Bindex=12">a recent YouTube video</a> he thinks it might happen soon: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Gospel itself, parts of it; parts of the Bible itself, and pastoral ministry, and responsible parenting, and good medical care […] are set to become potentially jailable offences. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Iles ascribes this to a <a href="https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/bills/change-or-suppression-conversion-practices-prohibition-bill-2020">bill</a> in Victoria that would ban “conversion practices” aimed at changing or suppressing an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.</p>
<p>Having passed the Victorian Legislative Assembly, the bill is due to come before the Upper House this week. The ACL is <a href="https://www.acl.org.au/blog_vic_lastweek">campaigning hard</a>, alongside other conservative Christians, to persuade the Liberals and crossbench to reject it. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1356397887853264896"}"></div></p>
<p>Other theologians and pastors have argued the legislation would protect LGBTQ people’s religious freedom — and their <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/liberals-tussle-over-gay-conversion-laws-as-religious-leaders-split-20201207-p56le8.html">lives</a>.</p>
<p>Visibly emotional, Iles acknowledges that LGBTQ people suffer “a lot of mental anguish” and “suicide rates are high”. However, he is convinced,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>banning conversion therapies won’t solve any of that […] Jesus will solve that.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Xr8W8I14F7E?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Self-proclaimed “Christian voice”</h2>
<p>The ACL’s most public campaigns lately have been over <a href="https://www.acl.org.au/freedoms">religious freedom</a>, <a href="https://www.acl.org.au/tags/gender">gender</a> and, before that, <a href="https://www.crikey.com.au/2017/08/22/acl-talking-points-on-how-to-argue-against-same-sex-marriage/">same-sex marriage</a>. </p>
<p>But Iles’ YouTube videos wage a wide-ranging culture war. For instance, he has <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSFiiiZ3q0k">warned</a> of a barely concealed plan by Western governments and the World Economic Forum to implement global communism, with coronavirus providing the opportunity.</p>
<p>One of his most-watched videos touches on the new US vice president, Kamala Harris. Iles (whose rhetorical style tends to be reiterative) <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVvENRJwbHk">described her</a> as “very, very, very, very, very, very, very left wing. Very, very left wing. Did I say enough ‘verys’?”. </p>
<p>And in another video, he pushes former President Donald Trump’s unfounded claims the US election was stolen, saying of the left, “Do you really think that they wouldn’t have a little tamper with a vote? Of course they would.” </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-christian-lobby-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-religious-right-60624">Australian Christian Lobby: the rise and fall of the religious right</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Once, journalists wanting “the Christian voice” on a topic would have sought out a bishop, denominational office or interchurch body. Today, that “voice” is likely to be provided by the American-influenced culture warriors of the ACL.</p>
<p>The group was founded in 1995 as the Australian Christian Coalition — modelled on the <a href="http://www.cc.org/about_us">Christian Coalition of America</a> — and changed its name to the Australian Christian Lobby in 2001. Since 2013, it has been led by <a href="https://www.outinperth.com/lyle-shelton-fails-in-bid-to-get-a-spot-in-the-senate-at-the-election/">Lyle Shelton</a>, who ran unsuccessfully for the Senate as a member of the Australian Conservatives, and, most recently, by law graduate Iles. </p>
<p>Aiming to “change the culture” and project “the Christian faith” in “<a href="https://www.npc.org.au/speakers/the-2019-religious-freedom-bill-debate/">the public life of the nation</a>”, the Canberra-based organisation pours out media statements and social media posts, provides spokespeople on issues, releases pre-election <a href="https://www.eternitynews.com.au/australia/is-mark-latham-the-new-fred-nile/">voter guides</a> and <a href="https://www.acl.org.au/lachlan-macquarie-internship">trains activists</a>. </p>
<p>In the 2019 federal election, it began directly <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/10/christian-lobby-targets-key-conservative-seats-in-test-of-us-style-campaign-activism">campaigning</a> on behalf of conservative candidates in selected seats. </p>
<p>In 2019, it <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/pause-button-hit-on-folau-fund-after-passing-2-million-mark-20190627-p521tg.html">raised over A$2 million dollars</a> in two days for Israel Folau, who was sacked by Rugby Australia for online comments suggesting gays and fornicators are destined for hell.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-could-the-australian-christian-lobby-be-investigated-for-its-israel-folau-fundraiser-119457">Explainer: could the Australian Christian Lobby be investigated for its Israel Folau fundraiser?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Board members and donors remain anonymous</h2>
<p>But, for all its high-profile lobbying, aspects of the group remain secretive. </p>
<p>Despite the erroneous impression it is a Christian peak body, the ACL describes itself as a grassroots organisation of “<a href="https://www.acl.org.au/about">over 175,000 individuals</a>”.</p>
<p>The group’s policies are decided by an anonymous board; their names have been secret since 2017 due to “<a href="https://www.acl.org.au/australians_are_beginning_to_see_that_freedom_is_under_fire">a merciless campaign to silence</a>” its views. </p>
<p>According to the ACL’s 2020 <a href="https://www.acnc.gov.au/charity/5701e078f7fd7ebaa1968e4425f7aa86">financial report</a> to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, its income for that financial year was over $5 million dollars, 91% of which came from “donations and bequests”. The next-biggest income source, at $238,000, came from “government grants”. </p>
<p>Donor information is also kept confidential — unless donors themselves disclose their activity. </p>
<p>For example, in 2010, former Rhodesian SAS soldier and mercenary <a href="http://mcf-a.org.au/articles/seminar-2016-testimony/">Dave Hodgson</a> said in a speech he writes “<a href="http://gpbwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/dave_hodgson_gpb_2010v2.mp3">six-figure cheques for the Australian Christian Lobby</a>”, having founded a telecommunications and resources company to raise money <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137551382_3">for that purpose</a>. Other donations have come from <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-godless-greens-pernicious-myth-or-political-reality/10099662">mining interests</a>.</p>
<h2>Campaigns against LGBTQ rights issues</h2>
<p>The ACL claims to stand for “<a href="https://www.acl.org.au/about">classical Christianity</a>”. However, the organisation enthusiastically supported Folau, despite his religious views being questioned by other theologians, such as Carl Trueman, who <a href="https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/04/israel-folau-unlikely-martyr">wrote</a> in 2019,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Folau’s religious views are really anything but Christian in the historic, dogmatic sense of the word, because he denies that most basic of Christian creedal doctrines, the Trinity. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The ACL also devotes a remarkable proportion of its time and resources to <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/interactives/chart/?chart=20160301-christian-issues">anti-LGBTQ campaigns</a>, claiming a Biblical mandate, when the Bible actually offers far more <a href="https://theconversation.com/god-made-the-rainbow-why-the-bible-welcomes-a-gender-spectrum-126201">complex</a> perspectives on gender. </p>
<p>Religious studies scholar <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-australian-christian-lobby-and-the-heterodox-israel-folau/11776738">Mark Jennings</a> asked in relation to the ACL’s support for Folau:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Has the battleground over the inclusion of LGBTIQ people in Christianity <em>really</em> become more central to this new and strange kind of orthodoxy than the ancient — one might even call them “Classical” — doctrines of the faith?</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Many Christians oppose the ACL’s positions</h2>
<p>Iles says the ACL aims to “<a href="https://d.docs.live.net/b4e8736bb1f266cd/Documents/Documents/PAPERS/ensure%20that%20we%20speak%20for%20the%20church%20generally">ensure that we speak for the church generally</a>”, and his predecessors often claimed to represent “the Christian constituency”. </p>
<p>Yet, many Christians distance themselves from the ACL’s positions. During the marriage equality debate, for instance, the ACL vigorously pursued the “no” case, despite one poll finding the majority of Christians supported “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/21/most-christians-in-australia-support-marriage-equality-and-want-a-free-vote">yes</a>”.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-christians-disagree-over-the-israel-folau-saga-118773">Why Christians disagree over the Israel Folau saga</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Similarly, the ACL campaigns against access to euthanasia for the terminally ill, despite <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-08/vote-compass-social-issues-euthanasia-transgender-republic-drugs/11087008">majority of Christian support</a>.</p>
<p>Iles regularly ridicules concerns about climate change, calling it “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N55MT_WpLI4">cultural Marxist rubbish</a>” and explaining that humans’ God-given responsibility is to “<a href="https://www.facebook.com/ACLobby/videos/climate-change-part-i-s4e1-ttt/535061360620163/">rule and subdue</a>” the earth. God, in turn, will not allow climate catastrophe. </p>
<p>However, this view puts him at odds with the 150 Christian and other religious leaders of the <a href="https://www.arrcc.org.au/">Australian Religious Response to Climate Change (ARRCC)</a> who wrote an <a href="https://www.arrcc.org.au/no_faith_in_coal">open letter</a> to Prime Minister Scott Morrison after the 2019 election, quoting the archbishop of Canterbury and Pope Francis about the climate emergency, and advocating blocking all new coal and gas projects. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1193007931546992640"}"></div></p>
<h2>Not just one Christian lobby</h2>
<p>While the ACL is sometimes mistaken for a peak body of churches, Australia has long had one: the <a href="https://www.ncca.org.au/about/story">National Council of Churches in Australia</a>, which has existed, under various names, since 1946. Its activities include advocacy for asylum seekers, Indigenous rights, climate action and an end to sexual violence. </p>
<p>Other Christian groups have formed in response to specific issues, such as <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpRdjt8MzyM">Australian Christians for Marriage Equality</a> and the asylum seeker advocates, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/LoveMakesAWayForAsylumSeekers/">Love Makes a Way</a>.</p>
<p>These groups’ lower profiles no doubt reflect their smaller resources compared to the ACL. The ARRCC’s 2019 <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1za8dk-tRAsU9IA0dPbKZt8FMWCo7f1Zz/view">annual report</a>, for instance, lists an annual income of just $88,325. </p>
<p>In the early 2000s, the ACL drew prime ministers and opposition leaders to its <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137551382_3">pre-election events</a>. Having historically positioned itself as “<a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/1462317X13Z.00000000071">rigorously non-partisan</a>”, the ACL’s recent campaigns reflect a return to its US roots, and perhaps hopes of achieving a similar polarising <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/28/opinion/christian-nationalists-capitol-attack.html">cultural shift</a> here in Australia.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/127805/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marion Maddox has received funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>Having historically positioned itself as ‘non-partisan’, the ACL’s recent campaigns reflect a return to its US roots, and perhaps hopes of achieving a similar polarising cultural shift in Australia.Marion Maddox, Professor, Macquarie School of Social Sciences, Macquarie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1503652020-11-26T01:18:16Z2020-11-26T01:18:16ZIs the Anglican Church about to split? It is facing the gravest threat to its unity in more than 200 years<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/370989/original/file-20201124-21-m87fu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Almost three years on from same-sex marriage <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/samesex-marriage-legalised-in-australia-as-parliament-passes-historic-law-20171207-h00cdj.html">becoming legal in Australia</a>, the issue is threatening to break up the Anglican Church in this country. </p>
<p>This is the gravest threat to the church’s unity in its more than 200-year history. For the three million-plus Australians who identify as Anglican, it could mean at the least sharp disagreement and at worst, damaging disunity.</p>
<h2>Same-sex blessings approved</h2>
<p>Long-simmering tensions within the church have come to a head with a recent judgement that supports the right of clergy to bless civil marriages, regardless of sexual orientation. </p>
<p>Last year, the dioceses of <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-01/same-sex-marriage-blessings-wangaratta-anglican-diocese/11468984">Wangaratta</a> and <a href="https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6459774/newcastle-anglicans-support-gay-marriage/?cs=14231">Newcastle</a> approved services for marriage blessings. Wangaratta diocese, once conservative, has become more progressive, while Newcastle has long had progressive stance. </p>
<p>Their new services are just for blessings of couples married in civil ceremonies, not actual church marriages. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, the services sparked <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/please-leave-us-archbishop-tells-same-sex-marriage-supporters-to-abandon-anglican-church-20191015-p530tk.html">fierce opposition</a> from the fundamentalist Diocese of Sydney. During the same-sex marriage debate in 2017, Sydney Diocese <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/10/sydney-anglican-diocese-donates-1m-to-no-campaign-for-same-sex-marriage-vote">gave $1 million</a> to the “No” campaign, because Sydney and its conservative allies condemn same-sex relationships as sinful and bound for hell-fire. </p>
<h2>Church’s court weighs in</h2>
<p>Given the disagreement, the blessing services were immediately referred to the church’s highest court, the <a href="https://anglican.org.au/governance/tribunals/appellate-tribunal-current-matters/">Appellate Tribunal</a>, to see if they conformed to the basic principles of the national church’s constitution. </p>
<p>On November 11, the court ruled by a majority of five to one <a href="https://anglican.org.au/governance/tribunals/appellate-tribunal-current-matters/appellate-tribunal-reference1/">in favour</a> of same-sex blessings. The one person who opposed the majority view was a lawyer from the Sydney Diocese, and whose minority view is included in the <a href="https://anglican.org.au/governance/tribunals/appellate-tribunal-current-matters/appellate-tribunal-reference1/">tribunal’s report</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-anglican-church-has-hardened-its-stance-against-same-sex-marriage-98149">How the Anglican Church has hardened its stance against same-sex marriage</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The bishops of all the Australian dioceses then held rapid virtual meetings to review the tribunal decision, and it was expected they would decree no blessings should go ahead in the interests of church unity. </p>
<p>At this point, those in favour of the blessings, including <a href="https://www.equalvoicesanglican.org">Equal Voices Anglican</a>, feared progressive bishops would give in to a conservative push to do nothing until the next meeting of the General Synod. The synod, the church’s national “parliament”, is not scheduled to meet until mid next year. But given the pandemic, even that timing is uncertain.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/371168/original/file-20201124-15-7hf564.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/371168/original/file-20201124-15-7hf564.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371168/original/file-20201124-15-7hf564.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371168/original/file-20201124-15-7hf564.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371168/original/file-20201124-15-7hf564.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371168/original/file-20201124-15-7hf564.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371168/original/file-20201124-15-7hf564.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Some Anglicans want to see same-sex marriages ‘blessed’ by the Church.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A statement <a href="https://anglican.org.au/australian-church-news/">issued by the bishops</a> on November 20 acknowledges “there is not a common mind” on same-sex issues among them. This is a significant comment, as this group has traditionally agreed in formal statements — however artificial — in the interests of church unity. </p>
<p>While the bishops say the General Synod will be able to address the issues, they have nevertheless urged clergy to consider carefully “whether or how to bless those married according to the Marriage Act” (which allows for same-sex marriage). In other words, the Australian bishops have officially recognised these blessings can now go ahead. </p>
<h2>But disagreement continues</h2>
<p>This will not be the end of heated disagreement. The Sydney Diocese will <a href="https://sydneyanglicans.net/news/general-synod-to-consider-legal-opinions-on-same-sex-blessings/50798?fbclid=IwAR3mUCBHZ5CAyS9xhX8OxPDmW_0HW4VASSHDvSkax5bXiL9QnixQuu19UNo">not easily give in</a> on this issue. On same-sex relationships, they <a href="https://researchoutput.csu.edu.au/ws/portalfiles/portal/36075647/30818569_peer_review.pdf">base their stance</a> on a few contested Bible texts.</p>
<p>Most biblical scholars, however, see those texts as referring to predatory forms of sexual behaviour rather than loving monogamous relationships. They <a href="https://researchoutput.csu.edu.au/ws/portalfiles/portal/36075647/30818569_peer_review.pdf">claim there is nothing</a> in the Christian scriptures condemning same-sex marriage. </p>
<h2>Other Anglican churches have split</h2>
<p>The dispute is very real. There have already been splits in Anglican churches around the world over this issue. Whole dioceses and individual parishes have broken away from national churches to form conservative enclaves in the <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/anglican-punishment-of-ep_3_b_9001442?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABTOCD0fit9Ivk2ugb03VdC61PaJTuPuawTjkuwUBY2NOi_-CNGm82_NMpMRdSfrwns1IEv7Br-dWz-w55vvVKg90apiHVoMjVMUb2P0wjC1WeT0FKDj3BgJpyygik98OUdMdvo9RXkZzNlDmtceZZU-1Msgvacuzm30xyLyPhDS">United States</a>, <a href="https://ca.reuters.com/article/canada-anglicans-col-idCAN1447677320080214">Canada</a>, and <a href="https://www.eternitynews.com.au/australia/nz-gets-two-anglican-churches-maybe-australia-will-too/">New Zealand</a>. </p>
<p>Last year, Archbishop of Sydney <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/please-leave-us-archbishop-tells-same-sex-marriage-supporters-to-abandon-anglican-church-20191015-p530tk.html">Glenn Davies</a> told Anglican supporters of same-sex marriage they should leave the church. Other Anglicans accused him of trying to <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/archbishop-accused-of-trying-to-split-anglican-church-over-same-sex-marriage-20191016-p5318r.html">force a split</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/371169/original/file-20201124-21-s8ri3g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/371169/original/file-20201124-21-s8ri3g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371169/original/file-20201124-21-s8ri3g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371169/original/file-20201124-21-s8ri3g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371169/original/file-20201124-21-s8ri3g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371169/original/file-20201124-21-s8ri3g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/371169/original/file-20201124-21-s8ri3g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Newcastle Anglicans voted to support same-sex blessings in 2019.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Darren Pateman/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>An amicable agreement might yet be possible across the Australian church, because there is already considerable diversity among the dioceses on numerous issues, such as women as priests and bishops, the submission of wives to husbands, and the remarriage of divorced persons. </p>
<p>But same-sex issues might well prove to be the Rubicon, because they have become an international Anglican issue in the era of the internet. This can be seen from the “<a href="https://www.gafcon.org/jerusalem-2018/key-documents/jerusalem-declaration">Jerusalem Declaration</a>” from the first meeting of the influential Global Anglican Future Conference in 2008. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We acknowledge […] the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Once some clergy go ahead and bless some same-sex marriages, the Sydney Diocese might push for some form of division in the Anglican Church in the coming months. The crucial issue will be what form it would take. </p>
<h2>Would progressives have to abandon the church?</h2>
<p>The Sydney Diocese is by far the largest diocese in Australia, and would not countenance being part of an offshoot church. It would want to establish itself as the “true” Anglican Church in this country, laying claim to the name and status. It would draw other conservative dioceses into its boundaries, and possibly even parishes and individuals from within progressive dioceses.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/same-sex-marriage-is-legal-so-why-have-churches-been-so-slow-to-embrace-it-91564">Same-sex marriage is legal, so why have churches been so slow to embrace it?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Progressive dioceses might be forced to abandon the national church structure, and be left impoverished. The battle over this issue, and who owns the name and church property, could well tie up lawyers and civil courts for years to come. </p>
<p>Such a split would also further diminish Anglicanism as a voice for justice and equality in Australian society.</p>
<p>However, such a split is not inevitable. Church leaders across the board will have to work hard in the coming months to find a way to prevent it, while allowing conservative and progressive forms of Anglicanism to flourish side-by-side, with mutual respect. </p>
<p>The decisions the leaders make in 2021 will be the most critical they have ever faced.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/150365/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The decisions the leaders make in 2021 will be the most critical they have ever faced.Dorothy Ann Lee, Stewart Research Professor of New Testament, Trinity College, University of Divinity, University of DivinityMuriel Porter, Honorary Research Fellow, Trinity College Theological School, University of DivinityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1490662020-11-04T12:39:21Z2020-11-04T12:39:21Z‘Rainbow wave’ of LGBTQ candidates run and win in 2020 election<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367418/original/file-20201104-15-1uiye72.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C7%2C4752%2C3142&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">LGBTQ candidates made strides on Tuesday.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/close-up-of-rainbow-flag-with-crowd-in-background-royalty-free-image/1135535265?adppopup=true">Marc Bruxelle / EyeEm</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>More LGBTQ candidates ran for office in the United States in 2020 than ever before – <a href="https://victoryfund.org/news/2020-lgbtq-candidate-diversity-report-released-at-least-1006-lgbtq-people-running-in-2020/">at least 1,006</a>. That’s a 41% increase over the 2018 midterms, according to the LGBTQ Victory Fund.</p>
<p>While an estimated 5% of the U.S. population identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/lgbtq-political-representation-jumped-21-percent-past-year-data-shows-n1234045">just 0.17% of elected officials</a> across all levels of the American government are LGBTQ. </p>
<p>Better political representation could help LGBTQ Americans maintain some of their hard-won rights, which have come under attack over the past four years. Since 2016, the Trump administration has weakened <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/us/politics/devos-sessions-transgender-students-rights.html">trans-inclusive protections in schools</a>, attempted to remove <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/06/12/868073068/transgender-health-protections-reversed-by-trump-administration">LGBTQ protections in health care</a> and proposed allowing <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/01/us/politics/hud-transgender.html">homeless shelters to turn away transgender people</a>.</p>
<p>Marriage equality, too, may be under threat. In early October, Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito suggested that the 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which made same-sex marriage legal across the United States, <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/10/14/amy-coney-barretts-confirmation-may-mean-end-lgbtq-marriage/5952960002/">should be overturned</a>.</p>
<p>In short, candidates and LGBTQ rights were both on the ballot in the 2020 election, either explicitly or implicitly. While many questions remain undecided at press time, here’s the takeaway from four down-ballot races I’ve been following as a <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-prosper-act-could-negatively-impact-lgbtq-students-100135">scholar of LGBTQ politics</a>.</p>
<h2>Delaware</h2>
<p>Democrat <a href="https://victoryfund.org/candidate/sarah-mcbride/">Sarah McBride</a> made history on Tuesday when she <a href="https://www.advocate.com/politics/2020/11/03/sarah-mcbride-makes-history-nations-1st-openly-trans-state-sen?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=politics&fbclid=IwAR0AEWihkmnyi8Eq_oHg9FjVTUdqM0bgenfI7bx6wZjP44VKx7amNXlHy8w">won a state Senate seat</a> in Delaware. In doing so, she’ll become the United States’ <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/15/us/politics/sarah-mcbride-delaware-transgender.html">highest-ranking transgender elected official</a> and the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/15/us/politics/sarah-mcbride-delaware-transgender.html">first openly transgender person to serve in a state Senate</a> anywhere in the nation. McBride <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/03/sarah-mcbride-first-transgender-state-senator-delaware-433990">defeated Republican Steve Washington</a>.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1323835825315028992"}"></div></p>
<p>Previously, <a href="https://victoryinstitute.org/team/roem-danica/">Danica Roem</a>, a Virginia Democrat who won a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates in 2017, was the <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-11-07/danica-roem-becomes-first-transgender-woman-to-win-state-seat-in-virginia">highest-ranking transgender person in elected office</a>. Roem <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/469163-danica-roem-wins-reelection-in-Virginia-state-legislature">was re-elected</a> in 2019.</p>
<p>Other transgender women, including <a href="https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2020/11/taylor-small-will-vermonts-first-transgender-legislator/">Taylor Smalls of Vermont</a> and <a href="https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/election/article246927272.html">Stephanie Byers of Kansas</a>, also won state-level races on Tuesday in notable victories. </p>
<h2>Hawaii and South Dakota</h2>
<p>At the start of this election cycle, only three U.S. states – Hawaii, South Dakota and Mississippi – had <a href="https://victoryfund.org/news/victory-fund-endorses-eight-more-lgbtq-candidates-for-2019-can-elect-lgbtq-city-councilmembers-across-the-country-2/">no openly LGBTQ elected officials</a> at any level of government. This year, candidates in Hawaii and South Dakota hoped to get their states off that list.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367320/original/file-20201103-21-f62i89.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Headshot of Tam wearing a red lei" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367320/original/file-20201103-21-f62i89.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367320/original/file-20201103-21-f62i89.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367320/original/file-20201103-21-f62i89.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367320/original/file-20201103-21-f62i89.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367320/original/file-20201103-21-f62i89.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367320/original/file-20201103-21-f62i89.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367320/original/file-20201103-21-f62i89.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Rep.-elect Tam of Hawai’s 22nd district.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://lgbtqnation-assets.imgix.net/2020/08/IMG_1648-scaled.jpg?w=790&h=530&fit=crop&auto=format&auto=compress&crop=faces">Facebook</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Democrat <a href="https://victoryfund.org/candidate/nieuwenhuis-jared/">Jared Nieuwenhuis</a> of South Dakota was <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/elections/results/race/2020-11-03-state-house-SD-42136/">unable to win a seat</a> for state House District 25 to become the state’s <a href="https://victoryfund.org/news/eight-lgbtq-election-night-stories-to-watch-live-tracking-results-for-310-victory-fund-endorsed-candidates/">first openly LGBTQ elected official in the state Legislature</a>. </p>
<p>However, in Hawaii, <a href="https://victoryfund.org/candidate/adrian-tam/">Adrian Tam</a> – who <a href="https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2020/08/09/with-huge-voter-turnout-primary-election-some-surprises-emerge/">upset a 14-year incumbent</a> in the August Democratic primary for the state House of Representatives – <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/results-hawaii.html">defeated Republican Nicholas Ochs</a>, making him Hawaii’s <a href="https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2020/08/adrian-tam-way-becoming-lgbtq-elected-official-hawaii/">only openly LGBTQ elected official</a>.</p>
<h2>Georgia</h2>
<p>One Georgia Senate race <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/results-georgia.html">remained undecided on election night</a>. The other – an unusual race called a “<a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/georgia-will-now-have-two-senate-elections-in-2020/">jungle primary</a>” between Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler and <a href="https://www.13wmaz.com/article/news/politics/elections/who-are-the-candidates-in-the-georgia-special-us-senate-election/93-116bf2c3-5283-4621-9327-cd92cf67f704">20 other candidates from various parties</a> – has drawn national attention from LGBTQ advocates.</p>
<p>A political newcomer, Loeffler was <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/us/politics/kelly-loeffler-georgia-senate.html">appointed to her seat</a> by Gov. Brian Kemp in late 2019 following the retirement of longtime Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson. Neither Loeffler nor her top opponent in the jungle primary, Democratic contender the Rev. Raphael Warnock, received over 50% of the vote, so <a href="https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/results/state/georgia/senate-special-election">a runoff election will be held in the coming weeks</a>. </p>
<p>This runoff will be significant for the LGBTQ community because of Loeffler’s recent sponsorship of <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/gop-senators-seek-ban-transgender-girls-female-sports-n1240992">a Senate bill to ban transgender girls</a> from playing school sports. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367094/original/file-20201102-23-waa0hr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Loeffler speaks in front of a tree, wearing a beige pantsuit" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367094/original/file-20201102-23-waa0hr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367094/original/file-20201102-23-waa0hr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367094/original/file-20201102-23-waa0hr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367094/original/file-20201102-23-waa0hr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367094/original/file-20201102-23-waa0hr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367094/original/file-20201102-23-waa0hr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367094/original/file-20201102-23-waa0hr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler of Georgia will have to defend her seat again in a runoff election.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/sen-kelly-loeffler-at-a-brief-press-conference-after-voting-news-photo/1229046653?adppopup=true">Lynsey Weatherspoon/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Loeffler’s proposed legislation is similar to Idaho’s new “<a href="https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/local/capitol-watch/idaho-governor-little-signs-into-law-anti-transgender-legislation/277-8541e9d3-2cbb-4780-8f4b-5a9b59232594">Fairness in Women’s Sports Act</a>” – a law that could require girls who excel in athletics to “prove their gender” through a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPxV72MPOC8">genital exam, DNA test or testosterone test</a>. LGBTQ rights groups fear Loeffler’s bill would allow schools across the country to <a href="https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2020/09/gop-senator-introduces-bill-require-genital-exams-girls-competing-school-sports/">conduct genital examinations of student athletes</a> who are presumed to be transgender. </p>
<p>Warnock, a pastor at Georgia’s historic Ebenezer Baptist Church, has made a <a href="https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2020/10/27/senate-candidate-rev-warnock-religious-freedom-and-lgbtq-rights">strong public commitment</a> to LGBTQ rights and <a href="https://www.projectq.us/raphael-warnock-equality-act-needed-now-more-than-ever/">condemned Loeffler’s legislation,</a> saying in an interview with the LGBTQ outlet Project Q that “no one is free until we are all free.” </p>
<p>In the same interview, Warnock expressed his support for the <a href="https://www.hrc.org/resources/the-equality-act">Equality Act</a>, proposed legislation that would add LGBTQ nondiscrimination protections into federal law.</p>
<p>[<em><a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=experts">Expertise in your inbox. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter and get expert takes on today’s news, every day.</a></em>]</p>
<h2>Historic victories and challenges ahead</h2>
<p>LGBTQ Americans <a href="https://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/11/14/lgbt-voters-rejected-trump-lopsided-margin/">vote heavily Democratic</a>. In 2008, John McCain won 27% of the LGBTQ vote while running for president against Barack Obama. In 2012, Mitt Romney won 22% of the LGBTQ vote. And in 2016, nationwide <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/meet-lgbtq-voters-who-backed-trump-n684181">exit poll data of LGBTQ voters</a> shows that Donald Trump received roughly 14% of the LGBTQ vote.</p>
<p>Harvey Milk, the late San Francisco city councilman, is <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/meet-lesbian-who-made-political-history-years-harvey-milk-n1174941">often incorrectly cited</a> as the first openly LGBTQ elected official. That pioneer was actually Kathy Kozachenko, who at age 21 won a seat on the Ann Arbor City Council in Michigan in 1974.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367321/original/file-20201103-19-8ekwbd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Black-and-white photo of Kozachenko wearing a newsboy hat" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367321/original/file-20201103-19-8ekwbd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367321/original/file-20201103-19-8ekwbd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367321/original/file-20201103-19-8ekwbd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367321/original/file-20201103-19-8ekwbd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367321/original/file-20201103-19-8ekwbd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367321/original/file-20201103-19-8ekwbd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367321/original/file-20201103-19-8ekwbd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Kathy Kozachenko was an out lesbian and a college student when she was elected to the Ann Arbor City Council.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2020_14/3292216/200401-kathy-kozachenko-se-432p_5562e4b980f96e95de85a43ab1d47e3c.fit-2000w.jpg">Human Rights Party records / Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Nearly 50 years later, LGBTQ candidates have made <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/rainbow-wave-2-0-nearly-100-lgbtq-candidates-claim-victory-n1077886">historic strides in political representation</a>. In 2017, there were <a href="https://victoryinstitute.org/news/america-report-map-provides-comprehensive-look-lgbtq-elected-officials-u-s/">under 450 openly LGBTQ elected officials</a> in the entire U.S. <a href="https://www.advocate.com/election/2018/11/07/84-plus-lgbtq-people-elected-amid-rainbow-wave">Over 150 LGBTQ candidates won</a> elections at the <a href="https://victoryinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Victory_Out-For-America-2018.pdf">federal, state and local levels in the 2018 midterm elections</a>. Another <a href="https://www.out.com/election/2019/11/06/over-80-lgbtq-candidates-won-election-2019-rainbow-wave">“rainbow wave”</a> came in 2019, bringing the total number of openly LGBTQ American elected officials to <a href="https://victoryinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Victory-Institute-Out-for-America-Report-2019.pdf">just under 700</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/bowmanmarsico/2020/07/28/the-march-of-public-opinion-on-lgbt-identity-and-issues/?sh=67afe34b0996">Social acceptance of LGBTQ people</a> is growing too, with over 70% of Americans saying transgender people should be protected from discrimination, according to polling by the <a href="https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Public-Opinion-Trans-US-Aug-2019.pdf">Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law</a>, and a similar percentage supporting <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/311672/support-sex-marriage-matches-record-high.aspx">marriage equality</a>. That has translated into ever more openly LGBTQ candidates running for office – and winning.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/149066/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Timothy R. Bussey made small contributions to several 2020 Democratic campaigns but did not support, endorse, or in any other way aid any of the candidates discussed in this story.</span></em></p>Delaware’s Sarah McBride made history on Tuesday when she won a state Senate seat, becoming the US’s highest-ranking transgender politician. A record 1,006 LGBTQ candidates ran for office this year.Dorian Rhea Debussy, Associate Director for the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, Kenyon CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1487732020-11-03T13:26:04Z2020-11-03T13:26:04ZIn supporting civil unions for same sex couples, Pope Francis is moving Catholics toward a more expansive understanding of family<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367077/original/file-20201102-17-gswok1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=81%2C74%2C4885%2C3090&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Young people at the University of Santo Tomas in Manila, Philippines, cheer Pope Francis in 2015, following his comments endorsing same-sex civil unions.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/PopeCivilUnionsReaction/4ece31bccdf14e68bf0bdfa7e1a6baa0/photo?Query=pope%20civil%20union&mediaType=photo&sortBy=&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=21&currentItemNo=2">AP Photo/Aaron Favila</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Pope Francis referred to gay people as “children of God” in a recently released documentary, “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/21/world/europe/pope-francis-same-sex-civil-unions.html">Francesco</a>.” He further noted that “a civil union law” needs to be created so gays are “legally covered.” The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/02/world/europe/pope-gay-civil-unions.html">Vatican later confirmed</a> the pope’s comments, but clarified that the church doctrine remained unchanged.</p>
<p>Public support for civil unions from Pope Francis is not entirely new. When he was <a href="https://www.ncronline.org/news/people/not-news-pope-francis-has-supported-civil-unions-years">archbishop of Buenos Aires</a>, and again in a 2014 interview, he spoke about civil unions for same-sex couples. </p>
<p>While the Vatican is right in saying that church doctrine remains the same, as a <a href="http://press.georgetown.edu/book/georgetown/family-ethics">theologian</a> who has been writing about Catholicism and family for over two decades, I see in the pope’s comments evidence that Catholic understanding of who counts as family is evolving.</p>
<h2>From judgment to mercy</h2>
<p>Traditional Catholic doctrine holds that marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of the family. Sex outside of marriage is judged to be immoral and, while gay people are not seen as inherently sinful, their sexual actions are. Same-sex marriages and civil unions, the Vatican says, <a href="https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html">are harmful to society</a> and “in no way similar” to heterosexual marriages. </p>
<p>Yet in his comments made public on Oct. 21, the pope framed his support for civil unions in the context of family. “They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out or be made miserable because of it,” he said in a news-breaking interview used in the documentary. </p>
<p>In <a href="https://litpress.org/Products/E4580/Reading-Praying-Living-Pope-Franciss-The-Joy-of-Love">researching for a book on Pope Francis</a>, I found that he has consistently offered compassion for Catholics without traditional families. Soon after becoming pope in 2013, in response to a journalist’s question about a gay person, <a href="https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/francis-explains-who-am-i-judge">he famously said</a>, “Who am I to judge?” </p>
<p>Mercy over judgment has been the mark of his papacy. The pope’s priority on extending mercy, theologian Cardinal <a href="https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/news/kasper_biographyl.htm">Walter Kasper</a> <a href="https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/interview-cardinal-walter-kasper">explains</a>, especially pertains to families. </p>
<p>Surveys commissioned by the Vatican in 2015 found that <a href="https://www.pewforum.org/2015/09/02/u-s-catholics-open-to-non-traditional-families/">Catholics desire more acceptance from the church</a> for people who are single parents, divorced or have live-in relationships. Knowing that people often feel judged because their families aren’t perfect, Francis has tried to make them <a href="http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/audiences/2015/documents/papa-francesco_20151118_udienza-generale.html">feel welcome</a>. He has stressed that the doors of churches must be open to all. </p>
<p>When, in discussing same-sex civil unions, Francis said that gay people have “a right to a family,” he seems to have implied that civil unions create a family. Though he is not changing Catholic moral teaching, I argue that he is departing from traditional Catholic rhetoric on the family and offering an inclusive, merciful vision to guide church practice.</p>
<h2>From family structure to family action</h2>
<p>Changes in Catholic teaching in the 20th century paved the way for Francis’ recent moves.</p>
<p>In a <a href="http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html">1930 Vatican document on marriage</a>, Pope Pius XI defended the traditional family structure against perceived threats of cohabitation, divorce and “false teachers” who asserted the equality of men and women.</p>
<p>Three decades later, at Vatican II, a meeting of the world’s bishops from 1962 to 1965 that led to sweeping reforms in the Catholic Church, <a href="https://ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=books">emphasis shifted</a> to the role families could play in shaping society. Marriage was defined as an “intimate partnership of life and love,” and the family was praised as “a school of deeper humanity” where parents and children learn how to be better human beings. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367081/original/file-20201102-23-1v5ltz2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367081/original/file-20201102-23-1v5ltz2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367081/original/file-20201102-23-1v5ltz2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367081/original/file-20201102-23-1v5ltz2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367081/original/file-20201102-23-1v5ltz2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367081/original/file-20201102-23-1v5ltz2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367081/original/file-20201102-23-1v5ltz2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367081/original/file-20201102-23-1v5ltz2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pope John Paul II.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/JohnPaulII/e7c510a26669445bb197d9c44d848085/photo?Query=john%20paul%20II%201981&mediaType=photo&sortBy=&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=109&currentItemNo=41">AP Photo</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Pope John Paul II, who was pope from 1978 to 2005, is often viewed as a foil to Pope Francis. In his writings, he defended heterosexual marriage and traditional gender roles, as well as rules against divorce, contraception and same-sex relationships. Yet the former pope contributed to shifting the Catholic conversation to ethical actions families can take. </p>
<p>In this regard, John Paul II’s most important document on the family <a href="http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.html">Familiaris Consortio, 1981</a>, gave families four tasks: growing in love, raising children, contributing to society and praying in their home. He taught that being a family means engaging in actions related to these tasks.</p>
<p>Catholic scholars like <a href="https://www.holycross.edu/academics/programs/religious-studies/faculty/mary-doyle-roche">Mary Doyle Roche</a> have since built on his framework to urge families to become “<a href="https://litpress.org/Products/E4832/Schools-of-Solidarity">schools of solidarity</a>” in which parents and children learn compassion for others.</p>
<p>Though same-sex couples remain excluded from official Catholic teaching, Catholic theologians such as <a href="https://divinity.yale.edu/faculty-and-research/yds-faculty/margaret-farley">Margaret A. Farley</a> have <a href="https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/just-love-9780826429247/">suggested</a> that these families, too, could prioritize love, social action and spirituality. Gay couples, she argued, “deserve the same protection under the law” as heterosexual couples. They also have the same moral obligations to each other and to the common good.</p>
<h2>Pope Francis on inclusion</h2>
<p>Pope Francis built on work done at Vatican II and the decades following it. One of his favorite ways of describing the church is as a “<a href="https://www.eerdmans.com/Products/7297/field-hospital.aspx">field hospital</a>” that goes where people are hurting. </p>
<p>Though he has addressed many important social issues during his papacy, including economic inequality and climate change, he called the world’s bishops to special meetings in Rome <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/pope-francis-says-the-church-must-welcome-divorced-and-remarried-catholics/2015/08/05/2c90f71e-3b92-11e5-b34f-4e0a1e3a3bf9_story.html">only to discuss families</a>. He urged them to find creative ways of ministering to people who feel excluded because they are not living in line with Catholic doctrine on marriage. </p>
<p>Themes of welcome and inclusion for single parents, divorced and remarried people and cohabiting unmarried couples were amplified in the document Francis wrote in 2016, “<a href="http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia.html">Amoris Laetitia</a>,” or “The Joy of Love.” </p>
<p>For instance, theologian Mary Catherine O'Reilly-Gindhart sees Francis <a href="https://ixtheo.de/Record/1570191700">saying that cohabiting unmarried couples</a> “need to be welcomed and guided patiently and discreetly.” This allows priests to meet couples where they are rather than shaming them or forcing them to hide their living situations.</p>
<h2>What’s the future of the church?</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.ignatius.com/The-Gospel-of-the-Family-P913.aspx">Francis’ critics worry</a> that the pope is watering down Catholic doctrine on marriage and family. But what I argue is that Francis is not changing doctrine. He is encouraging a broader view of who counts as families inside and outside the church.</p>
<p>In the same documentary in which Francis made his remarks on same-sex civil unions, <a href="https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2020/10/21/pope-francis-separation-children-migrant-families-documentary">he also criticized countries</a> with overly restrictive immigration policies, saying, “It’s cruelty, and separating parents from kids goes against natural rights.” He was referring to the <a href="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_19831022_family-rights_en.html">right to family</a>, which “exists prior to the State or any other community.”</p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p>
<p>The comments in the documentary show a persistent move toward welcoming families in contemporary Catholic thought. Francis proposes that a welcoming church should support all families, especially those who are hurting. Similarly, as he says, governments should do the same – including supporting gay and lesbian couples. </p>
<p>
<section class="inline-content">
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/338598/original/file-20200529-78871-1g5gse5.jpg?w=128&h=128">
<div>
<header></header>
<p><a href="https://www.ats.edu/">Jesuit School of Theology of Santa Clara University is a member of the Association of Theological Schools</a></p>
<footer>The ATS is a funding partner of The Conversation US.</footer>
</div>
</section>
</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/148773/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Julie Hanlon Rubio does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Vatican has clarified that Pope Francis’ support of civil unions did not change church doctrine. A theologian explains what Francis is doing is departing from Catholic rhetoric on the family.Julie Hanlon Rubio, Professor of Christian Social Ethics, Santa Clara UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1470842020-10-19T12:22:29Z2020-10-19T12:22:29ZHow conservative groups will advance their agendas before a Supreme Court with Amy Coney Barrett<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/363734/original/file-20201015-21-va7tke.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=14%2C7%2C4681%2C3415&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A lot of interests want to influence the cases that come before the Supreme Court and how they're decided.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/protesters-supporting-the-confirmation-of-amy-coney-barrett-news-photo/1229085184?adppopup=true">Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court has highlighted the ways interest groups use the legal system to pursue their goals. Barrett is <a href="https://fedsoc.org/contributors/amy-barrett-1">closely</a> <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/supreme-court-barrett-finances/2020/09/28/6c4a1e10-01d7-11eb-b7ed-141dd88560ea_story.html">tied</a> to the conservative Federalist Society, whose members have played a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/leonard-leo-federalists-society-courts/">major role</a> in President Donald Trump’s judicial appointments. Organizations who support and oppose her confirmation are <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/27/us/politics/amy-coney-barrett-confirmation-battle.html">intensely lobbying</a> senators and the public. </p>
<p>Like other justices, if confirmed, Barrett will continually face <a href="https://www.arnoldporter.com/%7E/media/files/perspectives/publications/2015/08/record-breaking-term-for-amicus-curiae-in-suprem__/files/publication/fileattachment/recordbreakingtermforamicuscuriaeinsupremecourtr__.pdf?">pressure campaigns</a> from groups trying to shape the direction of American law.</p>
<p>I have extensively studied how special interests use the court as a public policy battleground, including in my book, “<a href="https://blogs.umass.edu/pmcollins/friends-of-the-supreme-court-interest-groups-and-judicial-decision-making-oxford-university-press/">Friends of the Supreme Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making</a>.” Here’s what to expect from interest groups before a Supreme Court with a Justice Barrett.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/363749/original/file-20201015-19-fhs5qw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Judge Amy Coney Barrett gesturing with her hands at her confirmation hearing." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/363749/original/file-20201015-19-fhs5qw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/363749/original/file-20201015-19-fhs5qw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363749/original/file-20201015-19-fhs5qw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363749/original/file-20201015-19-fhs5qw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363749/original/file-20201015-19-fhs5qw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363749/original/file-20201015-19-fhs5qw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363749/original/file-20201015-19-fhs5qw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill on Oct. 14.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/supreme-court-nominee-judge-amy-coney-barrett-testifies-news-photo/1229075234?adppopup=true">Andrew Caballero-Reynolds-Pool/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Friends of the court</h2>
<p>The main way special interests participate in the courts is by filing <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/amicus_curiae">amicus curiae</a> (“friend of the court”) briefs in cases that intersect with their interests. In these legal documents, groups take positions to persuade the justices to endorse their economic, political and social interests.</p>
<p>Although amicus briefs are filed in almost all appellate courts in the United States, they are especially prevalent in the U.S. Supreme Court. Almost every case before the court has at least one amicus brief, and there is an average of about <a href="https://www.arnoldporter.com/%7E/media/files/perspectives/publications/2015/08/record-breaking-term-for-amicus-curiae-in-suprem__/files/publication/fileattachment/recordbreakingtermforamicuscuriaeinsupremecourtr__.pdf?">12 briefs per case</a>. High-profile disputes, such as those involving abortion, affirmative action, health care and same-sex marriage, have neared or topped <a href="https://www.arnoldporter.com/-/media/files/perspectives/publications/2016/09/in-unusual-term-big-year-for-amicus-curiae-at-the-supreme-court.pdf">100</a> amicus briefs.</p>
<p>Amicus briefs are not cheap – they can cost up to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/us/politics/lobby-groups-blanket-supreme-court-on-obama-health-care-plan.html">US$100,000</a> because of the fees related to attorneys’ time and expenses to research and prepare them. And the court’s <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_37">rules</a> can be manipulated to obscure who pays for these briefs. This has led to <a href="https://www.rollcall.com/2019/01/30/sheldon-whitehouse-takes-aim-at-funding-disclosure-for-court-briefs/">allegations</a> that groups are purposely hiding the wealthy donors who fund these briefs to further the donors’ political agendas in the court. </p>
<p>For example, the <a href="https://www.bradleyfdn.org/">Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation</a>, a charity that promotes conservative causes, <a href="https://harvardjol.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2020/05/Sen.-Whitehouse_Dark-Money.pdf">funded</a> many of the interest groups who filed amicus briefs in <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-1466">Janus v. AFSCME</a>. This 2018 decision weakened the power of labor unions by severely limiting their ability to collect fees from nonunion members used for collective bargaining. </p>
<p>Amicus briefs <a href="https://lexforipllc.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/collins.pdf">work</a>. Justices are <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1961752?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents">more</a> <a href="https://www.rchss.sinica.edu.tw/cibs/law/1.%20Monthly%20Seminar%20Since%202008/Papers/2010/20101222/Chang%20Chiang%20Hsieh_US%20Supreme%20Court%20Agenda%20Setting%20and%20the%20Role%20of%20Litigant%20Status..pdf">likely</a> to decide to review cases accompanied by amicus briefs. Justices tend to decide in favor of the <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.472.8484&rep=rep1&type=pdf">litigant</a> with the <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1065912906298535">most</a> amicus briefs on its side when deciding cases. In their opinions, justices frequently <a href="https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1567&context=facpub">cite</a> and <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/lasr.12166">borrow language</a> from amicus briefs. </p>
<p>Importantly, some organizations who file amicus briefs are more privileged than others. The justices are deferential to <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/lasr.12166">high-profile</a>, <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/43654917?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents">elite</a> interest groups, such as the <a href="https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/jlp20&div=9&id=&page=">American Civil Liberties Union</a> and the <a href="https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/ucinlr87&div=9&id=&page=">Chamber of Commerce</a>, particularly if those groups share their ideological preferences. The justices tend to <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/43654917?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents">vote</a> in favor of the positions advocated by these organizations and <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/lasr.12166">adopt</a> their legal arguments more often than lesser-known groups.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/363753/original/file-20201015-19-g7bp7x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Group of people carrying boxes with the amicus brief to the Supreme Court." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/363753/original/file-20201015-19-g7bp7x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/363753/original/file-20201015-19-g7bp7x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363753/original/file-20201015-19-g7bp7x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363753/original/file-20201015-19-g7bp7x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363753/original/file-20201015-19-g7bp7x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=541&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363753/original/file-20201015-19-g7bp7x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=541&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363753/original/file-20201015-19-g7bp7x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=541&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Fred Sainz (L) from the Human Rights Campaign and Jim Obergefell (R), plaintiff in the case Obergefell et al v. Hodges, deliver to the U.S. Supreme Court March 6, 2015 the Human Rights Campaign’s amicus brief in six marriage equality cases.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/fred-sainz-from-the-human-rights-campaign-and-jim-news-photo/465378306?adppopup=true">Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The conservative wishlist</h2>
<p>If confirmed, the addition of Amy Coney Barrett will give conservative justices a <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/26/politics/supreme-court-conservative/index.html">6-3 majority</a> on the court. Although both liberal and conservative groups file amicus briefs in roughly <a href="https://blogs.umass.edu/pmcollins/friends-of-the-supreme-court-interest-groups-and-judicial-decision-making-oxford-university-press/">equal numbers</a>, this will <a href="https://www.ncsc.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/15432/determinants-of.pdf">motivate</a> conservative interest groups to push their agendas before a sympathetic court. Liberal groups will be left trying to <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1532673X08328674">defend</a> their past victories.</p>
<p>What does this conservative agenda look like? First up will be dismantling the <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/california-v-texas/">Affordable Care Act</a> and the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/02/us/supreme-court-voting-rights-climate-change.html">Voting Rights Act</a>, which are already on the court’s docket. </p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/3-ways-a-6-3-supreme-court-would-be-different-146558">More long-term goals</a> will include restricting access to abortion, limiting the rights of the criminally accused, halting the expansion of LGBTQ+ rights, increasing the power of business and expanding the scope of the Second Amendment, which protects an individual’s right to bear arms.</p>
<p>High-profile groups leading this conservative charge will include <a href="http://www.aele.org/amicus.html">Americans for Effective Law Enforcement</a>, the <a href="https://www.cato.org/about/cato-amicus-program">Cato Institute</a>, the <a href="https://www.chamberlitigation.com/what-we-do/SCOTUS-amicus?filing=Amicus+Curiae">Chamber of Commerce</a>, the <a href="https://cjlf.org/program/briefs.htm">Criminal Justice Legal Foundation</a> and the <a href="https://www.wlf.org/litigation/">Washington Legal Foundation</a>.</p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p>
<h2>What are the tactics?</h2>
<p>The first step toward achieving these goals will be to influence the Supreme Court’s agenda. </p>
<p>Each year, the court receives petitions to review about 8,000 cases, but hears fewer than <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/reference/educational-resources/supreme-court-procedure/">80 cases</a>. To shape the docket, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/us/03bar.html">interest and advocacy groups will orchestrate test</a> cases by carefully selecting individuals to challenge policies they oppose. Once those cases are appealed to the Supreme Court, some groups file amicus briefs at the agenda-setting stage urging the justices to review a case. </p>
<p>Then these groups typically file a second brief at the decision-making stage. At this point, other organizations also file amicus briefs to lobby the justices to support the conservative outcome in the case, often <a href="https://www.virginialawreview.org/sites/virginialawreview.org/files/Larsen%26Devins_Online.pdf">working</a> with the attorneys representing the conservative litigant. This provides the attorneys with the opportunity to <a href="https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/judica97&div=51&id=&page=">coordinate</a> their legal arguments to appeal to the conservative justices on the court.</p>
<p>For example, in <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290">District of Columbia v. Heller</a>, which established the individual right to keep and bear arms in 2008, Heller’s lawyers <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802243.html">coordinated</a> with conservative interest groups on the content of their amicus briefs. These briefs contained arguments from historical, legal, linguistic and statistical <a href="https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/jfpp20&div=6&id=&page=">perspectives</a>, among others. </p>
<p>Liberals follow this playbook, too. One example: Before she was on the court, <a href="https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2253&context=facpub">Ruth Bader Ginsburg</a> filed an amicus brief on behalf of the liberal American Civil Liberties Union in <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/75-628">Craig v. Boren</a> and advised Craig’s attorneys. This led to the landmark 1976 precedent that established how the court evaluates claims of gender discrimination. </p>
<p>In their briefs, conservative groups will advance theories of judging known as textualism and originalism. These closely linked approaches hold that the best way to interpret the Constitution is according to how it was <a href="https://fedsoc.org/no86/module/originalism-and-determining-meaning/video/2">understood</a> at the time of its ratification. </p>
<p>For example, a judge might ask herself: How would the informed public in 1791 understand what “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” means? With a majority of justices on the court <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/ideas-with-consequences-9780199385522?cc=us&lang=en&">sympathetic</a> to these theories of constitutional interpretation, textualist and originalist amicus briefs are likely to be particularly effective.</p>
<p>If successful, this process will repeat itself over the years and in many different cases. This is necessary for interest groups because it takes a long time to achieve legal change, since the <a href="https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.uwm.edu/dist/6/132/files/2016/09/Reddick-and-Benesh-2000-w2z93z.pdf">justices are generally reluctant</a> to overturn their previous decisions. Instead, the justices tend to chip away at them over time.</p>
<p>For example, the American Civil Liberties Union was successful <a href="https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1440&context=caselrev">convincing</a> the court to apply the exclusionary rule to the states in <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1960/236">Mapp v. Ohio</a> in 1961. This rule holds that evidence police gather illegally is inadmissible in a trial. Subsequently, conservative Supreme Court justices have followed conservative <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9930.1987.tb00404.x">groups’</a> arguments by carving out numerous <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exclusionary_rule">exceptions</a> to the exclusionary rule. Although Mapp is still the law of the land, it is a shell of its former self.</p>
<p>With a 6-3 majority of conservative justices on the court – five of whom are 70 years old or younger – this strategy can be expected to continue for decades to come. This will give conservative groups and the justices who agree with them plenty of time to mold American law in their image.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/147084/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul M. Collins, Jr. received funding from the National Science Foundation for his work on amicus curiae briefs. He has consulted with the Office of United States Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism. </span></em></p>Special interests use the court as a public policy battleground. Here’s a rundown of how that works and which groups are likely to appear before a conservative court with Amy Coney Barrett on it.Paul M. Collins Jr., Professor of Legal Studies and Political Science, UMass AmherstLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1218652019-09-20T12:35:08Z2019-09-20T12:35:08ZMarriage could be good for your health – unless you’re bisexual<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/288797/original/file-20190820-170918-x76amm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Married – but perhaps not reaping all the benefits.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/gay-men-their-wedding-rings-41050975?src=4on39YZg3au5tc8IkGhqXQ-1-44">Chris Howey/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Is marriage good for you?</p>
<p>A large number of studies show that married people enjoy better health than unmarried people, such as <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180410132857.htm">lower rates of depression</a> and <a href="https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/the-magnitude-of-marriage-better-for-your-heart">cardiovascular conditions</a>, as well as <a href="https://www.health.harvard.edu/mens-health/marriage-and-mens-health">longer lives</a>. </p>
<p>However, these findings have been developed primarily based on data of heterosexual populations and different-sex marriages. Only more recently have a few studies <a href="https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301113">looked into gay</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.09.013">and lesbian populations and same-sex marriages</a> to test if marriage is related to better health in these populations – and the evidence is mixed. </p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-019-00813-2">Our study</a>, published online on Sept. 19, evaluates the advantages of marriage across heterosexual, bisexual, and gay or lesbian adults. We discovered that bisexual adults do not experience better health when married.</p>
<h2>Marriage and health data</h2>
<p>Using representative data from the 2013 to 2017 <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/index.htm">National Health Interview Survey</a>, we compared reports of self-rated health and functional limitation – difficulty doing activities without assistance or special equipment – across 1,428 bisexual adults, 2,654 gay and lesbian adults and 150,403 heterosexual adults. </p>
<p>Both heterosexual and gay and lesbian individuals are better off in terms of health when they are married than when unmarried. </p>
<p>For example, the odds of reporting good health are about 36% higher among married gay and lesbian adults than never married or previously married gay and lesbian adults. </p>
<p>Rates of functional limitation, such as difficulty climbing stairs and going out for shopping, are 25% to 43% lower among married heterosexual adults than cohabiting, never married and previously married heterosexual adults.</p>
<p>Why does this happen? There are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00728.x">two popular explanations</a>. </p>
<p>The marriage protection argument posits that marriage increases economic security and social support and encourages healthier lifestyles – for example, less smoking and drinking. </p>
<p>The marriage selection argument suggests that people with more education, income and other health-favorable characteristics are more likely to get married and stay in marriage.</p>
<p>However, unlike heterosexual and gay or lesbian adults, our study shows that married bisexuals are not healthier than unmarried bisexuals.</p>
<p>Interestingly, among bisexuals who are married or cohabiting, those with a same-sex partner are healthier than those with a different-sex partner. Their odds of reporting good health are 2.3 times higher and the rates of functional limitation are 61% lower.</p>
<h2>Relationship stigma</h2>
<p>Our findings suggest that bisexuals face unique challenges in their relationships that may reduce the health advantage linked to marriage. </p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.174169">A growing number of studies</a> have found that bisexual individuals experience poorer health than heterosexual, gay or lesbian individuals. This includes higher rates of mental disorders, cardiovascular conditions and disability. </p>
<p>Bisexual people are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1300/J159v04n01_09">often perceived by both heterosexual and gay and lesbian people</a> as indecisive about their sexual orientation, sexually permissive, and unfaithful or untrustworthy as romantic partners. For example, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0263-9">an experimental study</a> showed that people more often project such negative stereotypes onto a bisexual man dating a woman than they do onto a heterosexual man dating a woman or a gay man dating a man.</p>
<p>Researchers like ourselves still don’t fully understand the ways in which stigma influences bisexuals’ relationships and health. </p>
<p>We suspect that this stigma may undermine the health and well-being of bisexual people. It may strain their relationships and create expectations of rejection. Their efforts to conceal a bisexual identity from a partner or other people may also trigger stress.</p>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com.tw/citations?user=7OA2bO4AAAAJ&hl=en">We</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=iUuSyygAAAAJ&hl=en">hope</a> to see marriage one day become not only more accessible to all, but also equally favorable for all. </p>
<p>[ <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=thanksforreading">Thanks for reading! We can send you The Conversation’s stories every day in an informative email. Sign up today.</a></em> ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/121865/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ning Hsieh receives funding from National Institute on Aging (R01AG061118). </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hui Liu receives funding from National Institute on Aging (R01AG061118 and K01AG043417).</span></em></p>Studies suggest that marriage improves your health. But bisexuals don’t seem to reap those benefits.Ning Hsieh, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Michigan State UniversityHui Liu, Professor of Sociology, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1146112019-04-10T04:30:13Z2019-04-10T04:30:13ZThe Coalition’s record on social policy: big on promises, short on follow-through<p><em>This article is part of a <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/coalition-record-2019-69102">series</a> examining the Coalition government’s record on key issues while in power and what Labor is promising if it wins the 2019 federal election.</em></p>
<hr>
<h2>Religious freedom</h2>
<p><strong>Anja Hilkemeijer, Law Lecturer, University of Tasmania; and Amy Maguire, Associate Professor, University of Newcastle Law School</strong></p>
<p>In December 2017, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/dec/07/marriage-equality-law-passes-australias-parliament-in-landslide-vote">joyous scenes</a> accompanied the long-awaited enactment of marriage equality in Australia. This joy was soon replaced by outrage, however, when the community learned of the extent to which religious schools may legally discriminate against students and staff on the basis of their gender identity or sexual orientation. </p>
<p>In response, Prime Minister Scott Morrison <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/oct/13/morrison-caves-to-labor-on-gay-students-in-discrimination-law-reform-push">announced</a> last October that parliament would swiftly act to disallow religious schools to expel students on the basis of their sexuality. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/talk-of-same-sex-marriage-impinging-on-religious-freedom-is-misconceived-heres-why-82435">Talk of same-sex marriage impinging on religious freedom is misconceived: here's why</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>However, action on removing the special exemptions in the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2014C00002">Sex Discrimination Act 1984</a> (SDA) for religious schools quickly <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/dec/13/coalition-to-unveil-new-laws-to-guard-religious-freedom-but-stalls-on-lgbt-students">stalled</a>. Following a number of private members’ <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s1147">bills</a>, a range of <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_LEGislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s1162">amendments</a> and two Senate inquiries, it became clear the Coalition government wanted religious schools to retain some special exemptions. </p>
<p>In a Senate committee report in February, Coalition senators insisted the matter of religious school exemptions from the SDA be <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Sexdiscrimination/Report">referred</a> to the Australian Law Reform Commission. </p>
<p>To date, no referral has been made. And given the few parliament sitting days scheduled before the federal election, it appears this issue will fall to the next parliament to resolve. </p>
<p>The Coalition has also <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/government-response-religious-freedom-review">announced</a> a number of initiatives to boost protections of religious freedom following the release of the long-awaited <a href="https://theconversation.com/in-long-awaited-response-to-ruddock-review-the-government-pushes-hard-on-religious-freedom-108750">Ruddock Religious Freedom Review</a> in December.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-australia-needs-a-religious-discrimination-act-105132">Why Australia needs a Religious Discrimination Act</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Contrary to the panel’s recommendation, Morrison said the government <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/scott-morrison-pledges-religious-discrimination-act-but-delays-protections-for-gay-students-20181213-p50lyh.html">would appoint a religious freedom commissioner</a> to the Australian Human Rights Commission. He also <a href="https://theconversation.com/morrison-wants-religious-discrimination-act-passed-before-election-108755">said he wanted</a> to pass a Religious Discrimination Act before the next federal election, but the government has not provided any details on what form such a statute might take. </p>
<p>While the Liberal Party’s election policies <a href="https://www.liberal.org.au/our-policies">have yet to be released</a>, it is safe to assume the Coalition would seek to implement all the proposals announced in response to the Ruddock report if re-elected.</p>
<p><strong>What about Labor?</strong></p>
<p>If Labor wins the May election, it will feel pressure to follow through on removing exemptions for religious schools in the SDA, as it has <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Sexdiscrimination/Report/d01">committed to doing</a>. </p>
<p>Labor has also indicated it supports enacting a federal law to prohibit discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs, but it needs to see the details of such a proposal before <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/dec/13/coalition-to-unveil-new-laws-to-guard-religious-freedom-but-stalls-on-lgbt-students">committing</a> to it. </p>
<hr>
<h2>Freedom of speech</h2>
<p><strong>Katharine Gelber, Professor of Politics and Public Policy, The University of Queensland</strong></p>
<p>Freedom of speech has become a prominent topic in public debate in recent years. One trigger was the 2017 <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/1800.0">marriage equality survey</a>. During the campaign, the Australian Christian Lobby argued that marriage equality would “<a href="https://www.acl.org.au/why_gay_marriage_will_take_away_your_right_to_free_speech#splash-signup">take away</a>” people’s right to free speech and former Prime Minister Tony Abbott <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/21/abbott-insists-marriage-equality-threat-to-religious-freedom-after-brandis-calls-it-a-trick">insisted</a> that a “no” vote was essential, “if you’re worried about religious freedom and freedom of speech”.</p>
<p>A second trigger was the 2017 parliamentary <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Human_Rights_inquiries/FreedomspeechAustralia/Report">inquiry into freedom of speech</a>, which raised the question of whether the wording of the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html">racial vilification provision in federal law (Section 18C)</a> should be changed, and whether the procedures under which complaints are dealt with by the Australian Human Rights Commission should be altered. Subsequent <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_LEGislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s1063">attempts</a> to change the text of Section 18C were unsuccessful.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/free-speech-would-removing-section-18c-really-give-us-the-right-to-be-bigots-63612">Free speech: would removing Section 18C really give us the right to be bigots?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>What has received far less media attention, though, are the multiple ways in which the Coalition has undermined free speech while in government. The Coalition appears to be a friend of free speech only when it suits them.</p>
<p>The list includes extensive <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/free-speech-after-911-9780198777793?cc=au&lang=en&">laws</a> that restrict free speech far more than is necessary for legitimate national security purposes. </p>
<p>These include counter-terrorism <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1323238X.2017.1363371">laws</a> prohibiting the unauthorised disclosure of information that does not have a public interest exemption. Another <a href="https://www.amnesty.org.au/passing-of-draconian-laws-throws-australian-rights-and-freedoms-under-the-bus/">new law</a> ostensibly designed to prevent foreign interference in Australian affairs exposes journalists and charities to risk of prosecution.</p>
<p>In addition, the Coalition included <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-27/what-are-the-secrecy-provisions-of-the-border-force-act/7663608">secrecy provisions</a> in the 2015 Border Force Act intended to prevent people who work in offshore detention centres from disclosing information. The legislation was so draconian, the UN special rapporteur on the human rights of migrants <a href="https://ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16503&LangID=E">cancelled a planned visit</a> to Australia in September 2015 on the grounds it would prevent him from doing his work. Eventually, in the face of a High Court challenge in 2017, the government <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/peter-dutton-abandons-detention-centre-secrecy-rules-amid-high-court-challenge-20170813-gxv128.html">removed</a> the provisions. </p>
<p><strong>What about Labor?</strong></p>
<p>Labor’s position on free speech is less clearly stated. On the one hand, it has <a href="https://theconversation.com/government-needs-to-slow-down-on-changes-to-spying-and-foreign-interference-laws-98002">a record of support for national security laws</a> that restrict free speech. However, Labor takes a different stance from the Coalition on anti-vilification laws, which it <a href="https://www.pennywong.com.au/media-releases/new-anti-discrimination-laws-to-cover-sexual-orientation-gender-identity-and-intersex-status/">defends</a> as narrow, valid restrictions that prevent racism, bigotry and discrimination.</p>
<p>Perhaps the biggest shift in public discourse around free speech has been the degree to which politicians from One Nation, Katter’s Australian Party and the United Australia Party, as well as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jan/03/peter-dutton-says-victorians-scared-to-go-out-because-of-african-gang-violence">some from the Coalition</a>, have been emboldened to promote harmful stereotypes of migrants, asylum seekers, LBGTQI and other marginalised groups. </p>
<p>Indeed, in some quarters, political rhetoric has become so caustic that it has separated informed public debate from evidence and reasoning, and undermined core democratic institutions.</p>
<p>If Labor wins the election, its biggest challenge will be to provide the leadership to shift public discourse away from this and facilitate a political culture that embraces diversity and provides free speech to as many people as possible.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Social security and welfare</h2>
<p><strong>Peter Whiteford, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University</strong></p>
<p>Social security and welfare remains the largest component of government spending. In the <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2019-20/content/bp2/index.htm">latest budget</a> released by the Coalition government, spending is projected to increase from A$180 billion in 2019-20 to just over A$200 billion in 2022-23. This represents a slight fall, however, from 36.0% of total spending to 35.8%.</p>
<p>Compared to previous budgets, there are no major proposed cutbacks in assistance. The Coalition government has attempted to slash funding for social security and welfare in its past six budgets, with little success. </p>
<p>There are some welcome initiatives set out in the budget, including a commitment of A$328 million over four years to the <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/women/programs-services/reducing-violence/the-national-plan-to-reduce-violence-against-women-and-their-children-2010-2022">National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and Their Children</a>, and a commitment of A$527.9 million over five years to establish the <a href="https://engage.dss.gov.au/royal-commission-into-violence-abuse-neglect-and-exploitation-of-people-with-disability/draft-terms-of-reference/">Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/future-budgets-are-going-to-have-to-spend-more-on-welfare-which-is-fine-its-spending-on-us-111498">Future budgets are going to have to spend more on welfare, which is fine. It's spending on us</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But the budget also extended the government’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-costs-mount-the-government-should-abandon-the-cashless-debit-card-88770">Cashless Debit Card trials</a>, which have courted controversy. The <a href="https://www.acoss.org.au/media_release/mandatory-cashless-debit-must-cease-following-damning-report/">Australian Council of Social Service</a> has argued the card curtails people’s freedoms and hasn’t resulted in any positive effects. This followed an <a href="https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/g/files/net4981/f/Auditor-General_Report_2018-2019_1.pdf">Australian National Audit Office</a> report, which concluded that the card had major flaws and it was difficult to see where social harm had been reduced due to a “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/dec/14/cashless-welfare-card-trials-extended-despite-no-evidence-they-reduce-harm">lack of robustness in data collection</a>.”</p>
<p>The Coalition government has attempted to play up its social security and welfare successes in recent years, pointing to the fact that the proportion of the working-age population receiving income support is at <a href="https://ministers.dss.gov.au/media-releases/4786">its lowest level since the early 1980s</a>. </p>
<p>But this appears to be the result of fewer people applying for benefits rather than people moving off benefits more rapidly, as has been claimed. It also reflects a somewhat stronger labour market in recent years and changes introduced to the <a href="https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/services/centrelink/parenting-payment">Parenting Payment Single</a> and <a href="https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/services/centrelink/disability-support-pension">Disability Support Pension</a> programs under the Rudd/Gillard governments.</p>
<p><strong>What about Labor?</strong></p>
<p>Whoever wins the next election will face pressure to further increase welfare and social security spending as the <a href="https://www.ndis.gov.au/">National Disability Insurance Scheme</a> ramps up and the <a href="https://agedcare.royalcommission.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx">Aged Care Royal Commission</a> releases its findings. The <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Budget_Office/Publications/Research_reports/Australias_ageing_population_-__Understanding_the_fiscal_impacts_over_the_next_decade">recent report by the Parliamentary Budget Office</a> projects that real spending on aged care will increase by around A$16 billion over the next decade as a result of Australia’s rapidly ageing population. </p>
<p>Newstart, the main payment for unemployed Australians, <a href="https://www.thesenior.com.au/story/5639229/pension-rise-small-newstart-a-disappointment/">is also increasingly being seen as inadequate</a>. It has slipped relative to pensions and wages each year because it is indexed to the slower-growing consumer price index. </p>
<p>Labor has promised that, if elected, it will use a “<a href="https://www.9news.com.au/national/bill-shorten-labor-review-newstart-allowance/2d73d7f3-42c8-423f-8c4b-bfb0e4e012f0">root and branch review</a>” to look at lifting the rate of the Newstart unemployment benefit. However, it is not just Newstart that is inadequate, but support for single parents and families with children, which has been <a href="https://theconversation.com/its-not-just-newstart-single-parents-are-271-per-fortnight-worse-off-labor-needs-an-overarching-welfare-review-107521">cut by both major parties over the last 15 years</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114611/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anja Hilkemeijer is affiliated with Australian Lawyers for Human Rights.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katharine Gelber receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Whiteford has received funding from the Australian Research Council and the Department of Social Services. He is a Fellow of the Centre for Policy Development and a Policy Advisor to the Australian Council of Social Service.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amy Maguire does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The government is spruiking its commitment to religious freedom and freedom of speech, as well as its successes on tackling inequality. Its record, however, leaves much to be desired.Anja Hilkemeijer, Lecturer in Law, University of TasmaniaAmy Maguire, Associate professor, University of NewcastleKatharine Gelber, Professor of Politics and Public Policy, The University of QueenslandPeter Whiteford, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1107862019-03-06T03:03:48Z2019-03-06T03:03:48ZMarriage equality was momentous, but there is still much to do to progress LGBTI+ rights in Australia<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258058/original/file-20190210-174887-1iyflm7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Just as gaining the right to vote did not end the women's rights movement, so, too, will marriage equality not end the LGBTI+ rights movement.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">George Groves/Midsumma</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This is part of a major series called Advancing Australia, in which leading academics examine the key issues facing Australia in the lead-up to the 2019 federal election and beyond. Read the other pieces in the series <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/advancing-australia-66135">here</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Wednesday, November 15 2017, Northbridge Plaza, Perth, 7.00am:</p>
<p>“Yes responses, 7,817,247, representing 61.6% …” read the chief statistician of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, David Kalisch, on the big screen. The huge crowd erupted. Hugging, crying, comfort, joy.</p>
<p>That was one of the happiest moments of my life, along with December 7 2017, when marriage equality legislation <a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-in-2017-australia-has-delivered-to-the-lgbti-community-but-failed-its-first-peoples-87633">passed the federal parliament</a>. </p>
<p>For younger generations, this was the moment one of our defining and most hard-fought social movements had succeeded. We had won, despite the barriers put in front of us and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-research-reveals-how-the-marriage-equality-debate-damaged-lgbt-australians-mental-health-110277">damaging impact</a> of the postal survey.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/new-research-reveals-how-the-marriage-equality-debate-damaged-lgbt-australians-mental-health-110277">New research reveals how the marriage equality debate damaged LGBT Australians' mental health</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>However, just as gaining the right to vote did not end the women’s rights movement, so, too, will marriage equality not end the LGBTI+ rights movement. </p>
<p>As <a href="https://www.hrlc.org.au/opinion/2018/11/15/the-yes-vote-was-just-the-start-of-something-much-bigger-and-better">concisely put by</a> Anna Brown, director of legal advocacy at the Human Rights Law Centre: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Our victory in the marriage equality campaign was the starting point for something even bigger.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Below, I consider what’s next for LGBTI+ rights in Australia, outlining key areas for reform. Importantly, it is just one perspective and cannot reflect every concern of the very large and diverse LGBTI+ community. </p>
<h2>Equality and non-discrimination rights</h2>
<p>In the aftermath of marriage equality becoming law, the federal government commissioned the Ruddock inquiry into religious freedom, with the report eventually <a href="https://theconversation.com/in-long-awaited-response-to-ruddock-review-the-government-pushes-hard-on-religious-freedom-108750">released in December</a>. </p>
<p>Much of the <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/morrison-says-religious-schools-should-not-expel-gay-kids-as-ruddock-recommendations-leaked">reaction to this inquiry</a> has centred on existing exemptions that allow religious schools to discriminate against LGBT students, teachers, staff and contract workers (these federal exemptions do not apply on the basis of intersex status).</p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_LEGislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s1162">bill before the Senate</a>, sponsored by Labor’s Penny Wong, would remove exemptions for LGBT students. This would ensure they cannot be excluded from schools on the basis of their LGBT status.</p>
<p>However, we must go further. The <a href="https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2019/02/09/greens-senator-thinks-she-has-the-numbers-to-stop-religious-schools-expelling-gay-students-and-teachers/">Greens have proposed</a> also removing exemptions for LGBT teachers, staff and contract workers. This reflects a <a href="http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/national-news/religious-schools-fire-lgbti-staff/168731">just.equal survey finding</a> last year that 79% of Australians opposed religious schools being allowed to sack LGBT staff.</p>
<p>Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has indicated Labor’s broad support for the principle that teachers should not be discriminated against, but <a href="http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/national-news/we-need-to-know-where-labor-stands-on-lgbti-teachers-in-religious-schools/176757">has not specified</a> if religious qualifications will remain.</p>
<p>Whatever its form, all LGBTI+ people should be protected from federal discrimination law in religious schools, without qualification. Some state and territory discrimination laws also provide exemptions to religious schools and these should also be removed.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ruddock-report-constrains-not-expands-federal-religious-exemptions-96347">Ruddock report constrains, not expands, federal religious exemptions</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Most states and territories also have other exemptions to LGBTI+ protections, which should be scrutinised.</p>
<p>One example is sporting exemptions. These allow individuals to be excluded from competitive sporting activities on the basis of their gender identity or intersex status.</p>
<p>Even without exemptions, other forms of discrimination against LGBTI+ people remain permissible. </p>
<p>The federal Fair Work Act <a href="https://alastairlawrie.net/2018/05/27/unfairness-in-the-fair-work-act/">does not provide protection</a> on the basis of gender identity or intersex status. Only under federal laws and ACT, South Australian and Tasmanian laws are intersex status and non-binary gender identity explicitly protected from discrimination. </p>
<p>In New South Wales, even bisexuality is not protected.</p>
<p>Equality Australia’s <a href="https://equalityaustralia.org.au">recent survey</a> of LGBTI+ people found discrimination to be respondents’ number one concern. The discrimination law gaps identified above should be filled as soon as possible.</p>
<h2>Freedom from harmful practices</h2>
<p>The intersex community is often the forgotten “I” in “LGBTI+”, despite comprising up to an <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/10/26/push-australia-end-intersex-abuses">estimated 1.7%</a> of the global population. </p>
<p>In an interview for this article, Morgan Carpenter, co-executive director of Intersex Human Rights Australia, points out that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Intersex people – born with variations of sex characteristics – are still largely misunderstood, and our rights to autonomy over our own bodies remains denied. Children with intersex variations are <a href="http://www.srhm.org/news/intersex-human-rights-clinical-self-regulation-has-failed/">still subjected</a> to harmful practices, including surgeries designed to “enhance” genital appearance, with judicial sanction.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It should be a priority to end these <a href="https://ihra.org.au/32166/shadow-report-submission-cedaw/">harmful practices</a> and ensure the sex characteristics of intersex children are not altered without their informed consent.</p>
<p>The harmful practice of conversion therapy – whereby LGBT people are “treated” in an attempt to diminish or suppress their sexual orientation and/or gender identity – also remains prevalent in Australia. </p>
<p>A recent <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/gay-conversion-therapy-still-happening-in-australia">La Trobe University report</a> found that up to 10% of LGBTI+ people in Australia are still subjected to conversion therapy. A <a href="http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/national-news/banning-conversion-therapy-top-priority-lgbti-australians/170925">PFLAG/just.equal survey</a> last year found the top political priority of LGBTI+ Australians was to ban conversion therapy.</p>
<p>Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews recently <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/victoria-to-ban-gay-conversion-therapy-20190203-p50vdn.html">announced that conversion therapy will be banned</a> in that state, though further details are not yet known. </p>
<p>While banning the practice is an important step that should be followed by other states and territories, conversion therapy survivors Nathan Despott and Chris Csabs <a href="http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/national-news/australia-has-the-potential-to-lead-the-world-in-eliminating-gay-conversion-therapy/176615">have argued that</a> preventing conversion therapy requires further nuance:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[A] broader focus opens the way for the key recommendations of survivor advocates, namely legislation to address practitioners and referrers, protections for children, support for survivors, regulation of the counselling industry, and a public education campaign.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Legal and identity-related rights</h2>
<p>In most states and territories, transgender and gender-diverse people – those whose gender identity does not match their assigned sex – are required to undergo surgery or medical treatment prior to changing their sex or gender marker on their birth certificate. </p>
<p>Many transgender and gender-diverse people choose not to have surgery, or cannot afford it. This should not stop them from obtaining identity documents that match their actual identity.</p>
<p>Tasmania also still requires transgender people to be unmarried prior to changing the sex or gender marker on their birth certificate. </p>
<p>This has the effect of forcing divorce on transgender people who are married and want their birth certificate to match their gender identity. True marriage equality will only be achieved when these requirements are removed.</p>
<p>There is also a debate to be had, as <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-why-removing-sex-from-birth-certificates-matters-to-gender-diverse-people-105571">in Tasmania</a>, on whether we should remove sex entirely from birth certificates.</p>
<p>Finally, there is no federal prohibition of vilification on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status. Four states and territories also <a href="https://alastairlawrie.net/category/lgbti-anti-discrimination/lgbti-anti-vilification/">do not prohibit LGBTI+ vilification</a>.</p>
<p>One area in which vilification remains prevalent is sport. The <a href="http://www.outonthefields.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Out-on-the-Fields-Final-Report.pdf">Out on the Fields survey</a> found that 82% of LGBT respondents reported witnessing homophobia at sport. And 84% of all respondents believed an openly LGB person would not be very safe as a spectator at a sporting event.</p>
<p>Just as racial vilification is now unacceptable and unlawful, so too should vilification on the basis of LGBTI+ status be unacceptable and unlawful. </p>
<p>Restoring <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bill-shorten-refuses-to-rule-out-reintroducing-safe-schools-program/news-story/597f9536c7fcb29a4f79585365782dce">funding of Safe Schools at a federal level</a> would go some way to preventing this kind of bullying and harassment of LGBTI+ children.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-does-the-safe-schools-program-contain-highly-explicit-material-87437">FactCheck: does the Safe Schools program contain 'highly explicit material'?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Health rights</h2>
<p>Another key area for reform is LGBTI+ health rights.</p>
<p>Medicare and private health insurance do not cover many treatments that transgender and gender-diverse people may require to transition, such as surgical changes, because these are deemed “cosmetic”.</p>
<p>As transgender advocate and lawyer Dale Sheridan told me:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>While an approximate 10% Medicare rebate is provided for genital surgery, the treatment undertaken for most transgender and gender-diverse people is far in excess of this. For example, I have spent over $15,000 on four years of electrolysis to remove my facial hair, and there is no rebate available because this is considered cosmetic. However, having a beard does not match my female appearance and has caused much dysphoria.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The LGBTI+ community also lacks access to appropriate mental health care. </p>
<p>Under a Mental Health Care Plan, which can be granted by a general practitioner in Australia, individuals can access rebates for ten sessions with a psychologist per year. This is the case whether a person identifies as LGBTI+ or not.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-treatment-do-young-children-receive-for-gender-dysphoria-and-is-it-irreversible-64759">Explainer: what treatment do young children receive for gender dysphoria and is it irreversible?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>However, this upper limit places a particular burden on the LGBTI+ community. Those who are LGBTI+ are <a href="https://lgbtihealth.org.au/statistics/">more likely to experience poor mental health</a>. LGBTI+ people aged 16 to 27 are five times more likely to attempt suicide compared to the general population.</p>
<p>The out-of-pocket expenses associated with regular mental health care are too great for many LGBTI+ people, particularly when you consider they are <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/drive/lgbti-people-three-times-more-likely-to-be-homeless/8946718">three times more likely</a> to experience homelessness.</p>
<p>Particular groups face further burdens. For example, there is often very little awareness of specific issues facing the bisexual community. Visibility is a key advocacy priority. As bisexual advocate Misty Farquhar told me:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The mental health of bisexual people is incredibly poor due to the double discrimination we face, both from straight people and gay/lesbian folk. Our levels of psychological distress are second only to the transgender community, and the intersection of bisexuality and transgender identities is significant. We need to feel genuinely included and treated as equals, both in mainstream society and the LGBTIQ+ community. This can start to be addressed by genuine representation and targeted services.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Developing a national suicide and mental health strategy for LGBTI+ people could help to address some of these issues.</p>
<h2>Intersectional rights</h2>
<p>What is often forgotten about the LGBTI+ community is that many of us face intersectional and compounding forms of discrimination. This may be through our age, gender, race, disability or other attributes.</p>
<p>A 2018 <a href="http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/national-news/nearly-half-lgbti-people-disability-experienced-discrimination-past-year/170905">report showed that</a> 46% of people with a disability who identified as LGBTI+ had experienced discrimination, harassment or abuse in the preceding year. They were nearly five times more likely to be unemployed than LGBTI+ people without a disability.</p>
<p>LGBTI+ refugees seeking asylum in Australia are <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/not-gay-enough-the-bizarre-hoops-asylum-seekers-have-to-leap-through-20171128-gzu1vq.html">regularly required by tribunals and courts</a> to name gay clubs in Sydney, answer questions about Madonna, and provide evidence of their sexual promiscuity. Sometimes, applications are rejected on the basis that an applicant does not “look gay”.</p>
<p>Indigenous Australians who are LGBTI+ <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/sexuality/agenda/article/2017/03/30/indigenous-and-lgbti-whos-looking-after-you">are often marginalised</a> and excluded from the queer community. The prevalence of racism on LGBTI+ dating apps is <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-45573611">notorious</a>. </p>
<p>Furthermore, the experiences of older LGBTI+ people remain <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3150150">under-examined and stigmatised</a>.</p>
<p>In any further steps to advance LGBTI+ rights, we must not forget the diversity of our community. We need to devote special attention to those facing intersectional, compounding forms of discrimination and rights abuse.</p>
<p>Overall, acting on the key areas outlined in this article would represent significant strides forward in promoting LGBTI+ rights in Australia. Though marriage equality was an important step, it was but one in a struggle that has a long way to go.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/110786/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Liam Elphick is affiliated with several organisations and networks that advocate for LGBTI+ rights, including Proud 2 Play, The University of Melbourne Pride in Action Network, and The University of Western Australia Ally Network. The views in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of those organisations or networks.</span></em></p>Marriage equality was an important step for LGBTI+ rights in Australia, but there are many other areas in which LGBTI+ people in Australia still face discrimination.Liam Elphick, Honorary Research Fellow, Law School, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1102772019-01-23T19:05:12Z2019-01-23T19:05:12ZNew research reveals how the marriage equality debate damaged LGBT Australians’ mental health<p>Although Australia has <a href="https://theconversation.com/australians-vote-overwhelmingly-to-legalise-same-sex-marriage-87507">now achieved marriage equality</a>, the topics of sexuality and gender identity continue to spark heated – and often discriminatory – public debates.</p>
<p>Most recently, the issues of <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/explainer-what-is-the-religious-freedom-debate-about-and-why-are-we-having-it-20180911-p50320.html">religious freedoms and anti-discrimination laws</a>, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-education-about-gender-and-sexuality-does-belong-in-the-classroom-102902">Safe Schools program</a>, and <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/gay-conversion-therapy-is-growing-in-australia-but-morrison-says-it-s-not-an-issue-for-me">gay conversion therapy</a> have dominated public and political discourse. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/in-long-awaited-response-to-ruddock-review-the-government-pushes-hard-on-religious-freedom-108750">In long-awaited response to Ruddock review, the government pushes hard on religious freedom</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12380">New research</a> has suggested that such divisive debates have the potential to harm the mental health of LGBT people. These findings come from our nationwide study conducted during the <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/1800.0">Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey</a> in 2017. </p>
<h2>Mental health and discrimination</h2>
<p>The mental health of LGBT people is among the poorest in Australia. According to the <a href="https://lgbtihealth.org.au/statistics/">most recent estimates</a>, LGBT Australians are more likely than non-LGBT Australians to be diagnosed with a mental disorder, attempt suicide and commit acts of self-harm in their lifetimes. The most <a href="https://www.apa.org/pi/aids/resources/exchange/2012/04/minority-stress.aspx">common explanation</a> for this is related to their frequent experiences with prejudice and discrimination. </p>
<p>During the postal survey, many <a href="https://psychology.org.au/news/media_releases/3November2016">mental health organisations</a> and <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/mental-health-groups-sound-alarm-over-dramatic-samesex-marriage-survey-spike-20170917-gyizra.html">marriage equality advocates</a> publicly argued against a national vote on same-sex marriage. They often cited previous <a href="https://www.acon.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Marriage-Equality-Evidence-Review_web.pdf">international research</a> that showed marriage equality debates are a health risk for the LGBT community. </p>
<p>To test if this would also be the case in Australia, we asked 1,305 same-sex-attracted people from across Australia to report how often they were exposed to messages from each side of the marriage debate, as well as their current levels of depression, anxiety and stress. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/255053/original/file-20190122-100279-17rw6i4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/255053/original/file-20190122-100279-17rw6i4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/255053/original/file-20190122-100279-17rw6i4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/255053/original/file-20190122-100279-17rw6i4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/255053/original/file-20190122-100279-17rw6i4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=668&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/255053/original/file-20190122-100279-17rw6i4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=668&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/255053/original/file-20190122-100279-17rw6i4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=668&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The opposing sides of the 2017 same-sex marriage debate.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Regi Varghese/Samantha Manchee</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We found that increased exposure to the “no” campaign was related to poorer mental health. This included increased levels of depression, anxiety and stress, and was independent of people’s age, gender and socioeconomic status. On the other hand, people’s exposure to the “yes” campaign had no overall benefit for same-sex-attracted Australians. </p>
<p>Fortunately, this was not the whole story.</p>
<h2>Social support protects mental health</h2>
<p>We also examined an important factor that could protect the mental health of same-sex-attracted Australians during this period. <a href="https://theconversation.com/are-you-part-of-a-social-group-making-sure-you-are-will-improve-your-health-81996">Past research</a> has shown that feeling accepted and supported by the people around you is important for mental well-being. </p>
<p>To test the role of social support during the marriage equality debate, we asked participants whether they believed their immediate social circles voted “yes” or “no” for same-sex marriage.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/254953/original/file-20190122-100288-1ci2nps.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/254953/original/file-20190122-100288-1ci2nps.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/254953/original/file-20190122-100288-1ci2nps.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/254953/original/file-20190122-100288-1ci2nps.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/254953/original/file-20190122-100288-1ci2nps.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/254953/original/file-20190122-100288-1ci2nps.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/254953/original/file-20190122-100288-1ci2nps.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Perceiving that close family and friends voted ‘yes’ for same-sex marriage promoted acceptance and mental well-being.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Sam Mooy</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The results showed that same-sex-attracted people who believed their close family and friends had voted in favour of marriage equality reported significantly better mental health. Support from one’s immediate social circles was also found to shield against some of the harm done by the negative side of the same-sex marriage debate. </p>
<p>Although we initially found that people’s exposure to the “yes” campaign was unrelated to their mental health, the final results painted a far more complex picture. Same-sex-attracted people who believed they did not have support for marriage equality at home or at work actually benefited the most from these public messages of support.</p>
<h1>New year, new debate</h1>
<p>Our findings confirm what we already knew going into the national vote on same-sex marriage: public debates on issues relevant to the rights of minority groups have the potential to harm their mental health. But important lessons can be learnt from this research.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/six-months-after-marriage-equality-theres-much-to-celebrate-and-still-much-to-do-97783">Six months after marriage equality there's much to celebrate – and still much to do</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>First, as our nation continues to debate issues of sexuality and gender identity, we need to ensure that these discussions are conducted with <a href="https://theconversation.com/on-the-marriage-equality-plebiscite-lets-not-confuse-free-speech-with-a-free-for-all-64587">care and respect</a>. Failing to do so can have serious mental health consequences for many of Australia’s most vulnerable populations. </p>
<p>Second, in the current social and political climate, LGBT allies and community organisations play an important role in promoting messages of support and acceptance. These messages are being heard loud and clear, especially among those who need to hear them the most.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>If this article has raised issues for you or if you’re concerned about someone you know, please contact <a href="https://www.lifeline.org.au/">Lifeline Australia</a> on 13 11 14 or <a href="https://qlife.org.au/">QLife</a> on 1800 184 527 for nationwide counselling and referral services.</em></p>
<p><em>For those in the LGBT community who don’t feel accepted by their immediate social circles, there is always <a href="http://www.starobserver.com.au/lgbti-community-services-and-organisations">a place close to home</a> for you to reach out to for support.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/110277/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fiona White has received funding from the Australian Research Council, Office of Learning and Teaching and Vic Health. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lauren Harvey, Michael R. Pulciani, and Stefano Verrelli do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The findings confirm that debate on issues related to minority groups’ lives and well-being can significantly affect their mental health.Stefano Verrelli, PhD Scholar, University of SydneyFiona White, Professor of Social Psychology, University of SydneyLauren Harvey, PhD Scholar, University of SydneyMichael R. Pulciani, Master of Research Candidate, Macquarie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1087552018-12-13T02:21:49Z2018-12-13T02:21:49ZMorrison wants Religious Discrimination Act passed before election<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/250380/original/file-20181213-110256-m92r21.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Scott Morrison has promised to protect people against discrimination because of their religious faith, and says he wants to do it before the election.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The government will introduce a Religious Discrimination Act to
protect the rights of people of faith, with Scott Morrison declaring
he would like the legislation passed before the election.</p>
<p>Announcing the government’s <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/government-response-religious-freedom-review">long-awaited response to the Ruddock
inquiry into religious freedom</a> – which the government has had since
May - Morrison said some people of faith felt “the walls closing in on
them”.</p>
<p>In a range of measures, the government said that as well as making
religion a “protected attribute” in the new Religious Discrimination
Act, it would also</p>
<ul>
<li><p>establish a statutory position of Freedom of Religion Commissioner
in the Australian Human Rights Commission;</p></li>
<li><p>develop a Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill to bring in
a range of amendments recommended by the Ruddock review.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Morrison repeated his offer of a free vote on the legislation before
parliament to protect LGBT students in religious schools from
discrimination. This legislation was deadlocked with Labor in the last
week of sitting.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-australians-religious-freedom-is-worth-protecting-99929">Why Australians' religious freedom is worth protecting</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The government is now referring this and the broader issue of
discrimination against LGBT teachers and other staff in these schools
for discussion with the states, with a potential referral to the
Australian Law Reform Commission, which would report in the second
half of next year.</p>
<p>Morrison said 70% of Australians identified with some religious belief.</p>
<h2>People of faith feel “walls closing in”</h2>
<p>Strongly arguing for his proposed changes, he said: “Those who think
that Australians of religious faith don’t feel that the walls have
been closing in on them for a while” were “clearly not talking to many
people in religious communities or multicultural communities in
Australia.”</p>
<p>He had had a conversation with a community in Western Sydney who “said
they left where they came from to come to Australia because of
religious persecution in the countries they were living in - only now,
they feel, to be potentially facing the same sort of limitations to
how they practice their religion in this country.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-needs-a-better-conversation-about-religious-freedom-96411">Australia needs a better conversation about religious freedom</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>"And that made me incredibly sad. That one of the great liberties
Australia has always been known for - at perception and indeed in their
mind in fact - is being curtailed. I don’t think that’s something I
should allow to stand,” Morrison said.</p>
<h2>Timing up in the air</h2>
<p>On the timing of the legislation, he said: “I’m happy for us to advance
a Religious Discrimination Act and also to deal with the other
legislative matters before the next election. I would hope they would
have the support of the Labor Party”.</p>
<p>There will be consultations over the summer.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-gay-wedding-cake-dilemma-when-religious-freedom-and-lgbti-rights-intersect-93070">The 'gay wedding cake' dilemma: when religious freedom and LGBTI rights intersect</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But with only a handful of sitting days before the election, it will be testing to meet Morrison’s timetable for passage.</p>
<p>The Law Council supported enshrining religious protections but said
“the delicate balance between freedom of religion and freedom from
discrimination would be better dealt with in comprehensive national
anti-discrimination legislation”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/108755/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Prime Minister Scott Morrison plans to create a new post of Freedom of Religion Commissioner, because he says many people of religion “feel the wheels closing in”.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1063462018-11-15T03:08:55Z2018-11-15T03:08:55ZMarriage has changed dramatically throughout history, but gender inequalities remain<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244986/original/file-20181112-116820-c5qyxp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Same-sex marriage has been legal for a year in Australia, but more progress can still be made on gender inequality in marriages and cohabiting relationships. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jono Searle/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>One year ago, Australians were asked “Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?”. The answer was a resounding “yes” – <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/1800.0">more than 60% of those who expressed a view backed marriage equality</a>.</p>
<p>The anniversary of this historic moment offers an opportunity to reflect on how marriage as an institution has changed in Australia and other Western democratic countries over the last few hundred years, as well as the ways it remains stubbornly the same. </p>
<p>Many of those who argued for the “no” vote asserted that Australia should retain “the traditional definition of marriage”. But <a href="https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781785367120/9781785367120.00023.xml">our research</a> on the history of marriage and divorce shows that the tradition of marriage has actually changed a lot since the 18th century.</p>
<p>Although much progress has been made, gender inequality within relationships continues to be a problem, particularly if couples prefer to live together without getting married.</p>
<h2>Women have gained more rights</h2>
<p>Historically, marriage was the key way families <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0363199002238555">passed on status, wealth and property</a> from generation to generation. </p>
<p>The institution of marriage also came with strongly prescribed gender roles. Women’s sexuality, rights and access to financial resources were strictly controlled in marriages. Regardless of whether a family was poor or wealthy, women’s bodies and labour were <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SydLRev/2012/35.html">regarded as the property of their husbands in the 18th and 19th century</a>. Prior to the 20th century married women lost their identities and many of their individual rights. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/if-were-serious-about-supporting-working-families-here-are-three-policies-we-need-to-enact-now-105490">If we're serious about supporting working families, here are three policies we need to enact now</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In the mid-20th century, however, many laws that explicitly discriminated against women were reformed in most Western democratic countries. <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0363199002238555">Wives gained their own legal and economic status</a> within marriage. The decline in the influence of religion also played a role in marriage laws becoming more “gender neutral”. </p>
<p>Though Western countries have removed laws that explicitly discriminate against women, gendered consequences remain. </p>
<p>For instance, society continues to promote different roles for men and women within the family following the birth of a child. Women take on much more of the <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11205-016-1539-3">housework</a> and <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11205-016-1278-5">childcare</a> duties. And married women, in particular, <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00479.x">do more of the housework</a> on average than women in cohabiting relationships with men. </p>
<h2>But cohabiting couples have fewer legal rights</h2>
<p>Today, the laws in most Western democratic countries recognise a diversity of family types. At the same time, couples in cohabiting relationships <a href="https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781785367120/9781785367120.00023.xml">continue to have fewer rights, entitlements and obligations</a> compared with married couples.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-legal-benefits-do-married-couples-have-that-de-facto-couples-do-not-83896">Explainer: what legal benefits do married couples have that de facto couples do not?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>As a result, cohabiting women are overall <a href="https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781785367120/9781785367120.00023.xml">more likely than married women</a> to experience relationship dissolution, single parenthood and poverty.</p>
<p>For example, no country legally obliges cohabiting couples to financially support a partner staying home to look after children. Like married women, cohabiting women are <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11205-016-1278-5">more likely than their partners</a> to take time out of the workforce to care for children. And the lack of legal protection makes women in cohabiting relationships economically vulnerable. </p>
<p>Another example is the difference in laws around financial settlement and the division of wealth after a relationship breaks down. In most countries, women in marriages who take on a home-maker role can seek to claim a share of their spouse’s property if their relationship dissolves. Women in cohabiting relationships, however, <a href="https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781785367120/9781785367120.00023.xml">often have no similar rights or very limited rights.</a></p>
<p>Paternity is another issue for cohabiting couples. Many countries do not automatically assign paternity of children – and the assumption of shared custody of children – to cohabiting fathers. </p>
<p>Australia, however, is somewhat of an exception in offering more protections to cohabiting couples. </p>
<p>Here, couples who have cohabited for at least two years or have a child together are <a href="https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781785367120/9781785367120.00023.xml">protected by the federal family law’s property division regulations</a>. These laws <a href="https://aifs.gov.au/publications/division-matrimonial-property-australia/introduction">take into account</a> both partners’ non-financial contributions to a relationship (such as caring for children) and their future needs. </p>
<p>The court also has discretionary power after the breakdown of a relationship to give one partner a share of property held solely in their former partner’s name, such as a superannuation fund.</p>
<p>And fathers in de facto relationships do not have to take extra steps to establish paternity and shared custody of children. This makes it easier for fathers to obtain shared custody if a relationship breaks down and for mothers to seek child support.</p>
<p>These laws give Australian women in cohabiting relationships greater financial protections. However, there are limits to these protections. The laws <a href="https://aifs.gov.au/publications/division-matrimonial-property-australia/introduction">do not apply</a> to cohabiting relationships of less than two years, for example, unless the couple has a child together.</p>
<h2>The appeal of marriage to same-sex couples</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781785367120/9781785367120.00024.xml">Research has found</a> that because Australia offers such strong legal and social recognition of de facto relationships, LGBT activists initially focused their efforts on gaining de facto recognition of same-sex relationships, rather than marriage equality. </p>
<p>LGBT activists didn’t really start <a href="https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781785367120/9781785367120.00024.xml">focusing on marriage</a> until 2004, when the Australian government altered the Australian Marriage Act of 1961. By strictly defining marriage as “<a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00938">the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others</a>”, the government <a href="https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781785367120/9781785367120.00024.xml">offended many in the LGBT community</a> and helped spark the desire for change. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-year-since-the-marriage-equality-vote-much-has-been-gained-and-there-is-still-much-to-be-done-106326">A year since the marriage equality vote, much has been gained – and there is still much to be done</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The symbolic importance of marriage in the LGBT community also gradually increased, resulting in more LGBT attention on gaining marriage equality.</p>
<p>Today, the extent to which marriage appeals more to gay men or lesbians depends on a range of factors. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/245665/original/file-20181115-194500-1r62mma.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/245665/original/file-20181115-194500-1r62mma.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/245665/original/file-20181115-194500-1r62mma.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/245665/original/file-20181115-194500-1r62mma.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/245665/original/file-20181115-194500-1r62mma.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/245665/original/file-20181115-194500-1r62mma.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/245665/original/file-20181115-194500-1r62mma.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Lesbians have accounted for the majority of same-sex marriages in Australia so far. Jill Kindt (left) and Jo Grant were the first.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dan Peled/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So far, <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/lesbians-lead-the-way-down-the-samesex-aisle-figures-show/news-story/06121e9e5f650a35e7e341ce1b719824">lesbians have accounted for the majority of same-sex marriages</a> in Australia. This may be because in the context of a <a href="https://data.oecd.org/socialexp/social-spending.htm#indicator-chart">limited social safety net compared to other countries</a>, women may value the marginally better financial protections offered by marriage given they are <a href="https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/sites/default/files/cfca/pubs/papers/a145197/cfca18.pdf">more likely than gay men to have children</a>. </p>
<p>For all the debate about “the traditional definition of marriage”, our research finds that marriage has always been a constantly evolving and changing institution. Same-sex marriage is just the latest change. </p>
<p>But more progress can be made. Even though we have finally addressed inequality for same-sex couples, and laws relating to marriage no longer explicitly discriminate against men or women, gender inequality within the institution of marriage continues to be a problem.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/106346/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Brady receives funding from the Australian Research Council and has previously received funding from the Australian and New Zealand School of Government.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Belinda Hewitt receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>Marriage equality was a major step forward for Australia. But women in both marriages and cohabiting relationships continue to deal with inequality and gender-prescribed roles.Michelle Brady, Senior Research Fellow in Sociology, The University of QueenslandBelinda Hewitt, Associate Professor of Sociology, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1063262018-11-11T19:05:46Z2018-11-11T19:05:46ZA year since the marriage equality vote, much has been gained – and there is still much to be done<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244682/original/file-20181108-74757-x86g2m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The results of the SSM vote brought great jubilation on November 15, 2017- but the fight is not yet over.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Luis Enrique Ascui</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>November 15, 2018 is the one-year anniversary of Australians voting “yes” to marriage equality. The survey was an <a href="https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2017/november/1509454800/judith-brett/travesty-process">unprecedented</a> two-month exercise in engaging with current Australian community values around sexuality and relationships. </p>
<p>The survey returned a clear result, with 61.6% in favour of allowing same-sex couples to marry. Legislation recognising marriage equality passed into law on December 8.</p>
<p>In the six months after the legislation passed, <a href="https://junkee.com/marriage-equality-numbers/161455">almost 2,500 same-sex couples were married</a>. That’s about 100 gay weddings a week.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-postal-survey-is-both-bizarre-and-typical-in-the-history-of-western-marriage-83572">The postal survey is both bizarre and typical in the history of Western marriage</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>LGBT people still have mixed and changing views about marriage. Former high court judge, Michael Kirby <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/nov/04/michael-kirby-former-judge-to-marry-partner-on-50th-anniversary-of-day-they-met">expressed these ambivalences well</a> recently, when he and his partner, Johan van Vloten, announced their decision to marry:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>we’ve been together now for 49 years and eight months. And so it just seemed a little artificial. It seemed a little late for the confetti. And it also seemed to us a little bit patriarchal… (but) we’ve ultimately decided that we are going to get married.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>For very many LGBT people, the postal survey was a deeply traumatic time. Many still live with the ongoing grief of having had the dignity of their lives, and those of their children, up for debate.</p>
<p>A soon to be released <a href="https://www.theliftedbrow.com/going-postal-more-than-yes-or-no/">collection of queer writing</a> from the marriage equality survey period provides a sensitive and beautiful document of that experience (including a <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-postal-survey-is-both-bizarre-and-typical-in-the-history-of-western-marriage-83572">piece</a> of mine).</p>
<p>But the passage of marriage equality legislation was not the end of this episode in our history. Our communities are still healing after the bruising campaign, and its aftermath has exposed a legal and social landscape in which the human rights of LGBT people are still not adequately valued and respected. </p>
<p>In what was presented at the time as a conciliatory gesture to the religious right, then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull convened an <a href="https://www.pmc.gov.au/domestic-policy/religious-freedom-review">expert panel</a> to “examine whether Australian law adequately protects the human right to freedom of religion”.</p>
<p>Far from placating conservative Christians, unsettled by the arrival of marriage equality, the Ruddock review <a href="https://theconversation.com/ruddock-report-constrains-not-expands-federal-religious-exemptions-96347">brought into view</a> the considerable exemptions from sexual discrimination legislation that Australian law grants religious bodies.</p>
<p>Australians were surprised and outraged to discover that, in most Australian jurisdictions, religious schools are permitted to expel students and fire teachers for the simple fact of their sexuality or gender identity. This is the case even if those students or teachers are people of faith and living in accordance with the tenets of their church.</p>
<p>When we launched the report of our three year study of <a href="https://www.hrlc.org.au/reports/preventing-harm">LGBT conversion therapy</a> last month, people were similarly surprised and horrified. These harmful and discredited practices - futile attempts to make LGBT people straight and cisgendered - are still present in many Australian religious communities, and remain legal. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/as-australians-say-yes-to-marriage-equality-the-legal-stoush-over-human-rights-takes-centre-stage-87337">As Australians say 'yes' to marriage equality, the legal stoush over human rights takes centre stage</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Perhaps this moment of realisation of the magnitude of discrimination and harms that the law in Australia still permits is one of the most important outcomes of the marriage equality postal survey.</p>
<p>The postal survey forced the majority of Australian’s to reflect on their values around sexuality, relationships and humanity. The clear majority of Australians came to the conclusion LGBT people are just as human as all other Australians. We decided LGBT people deserve the same opportunities for joy and loss, commitment and recognition, and protection under the law, that marriage provides.</p>
<p>This recognition of the dignity and humanity of LGBT people has brought forward debate about the law in regard to religion and sex. Made aware of the ways current law permits religious bodies to discriminate on the basis of sex, the majority of Australians recognise the state of the law does not reflect their values.</p>
<p>It’s time to renegotiate the balance of rights between the protection of LGBT people from discrimination and the permission we give people of faith to discriminate on the basis of sex. </p>
<p>And this might not be a bad thing for religion in Australia. Religious communities might need to reflect on why they are so obsessed with sex. Sexual values are not present in any of the founding creeds of Australia’s major religions. And there is no consistent view in any religion regarding teachings about gender and sexuality. </p>
<p>A recent study on <a href="https://mccrindle.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Faith-and-Belief-in-Australia-Report_McCrindle_2017.pdf">Faith and Belief in Australia</a> showed only 20% of Australians are actively involved in religion. It also found the biggest block (31%) to Australians engaging with Christianity was the churches’ teaching and stance on homosexuality. </p>
<p>The postal survey has, ironically, made Australia come to grips with religion. Perhaps it’s now time for Australia’s religions to come to grips with sex.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/106326/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Timothy W. Jones receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>The marriage equality debate brought the rights of LGBT Australians to the fore - now we need to turn our attention to the ways they are still discriminated against.Timothy W. Jones, Senior Lecturer in History, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1051322018-10-24T19:05:07Z2018-10-24T19:05:07ZWhy Australia needs a Religious Discrimination Act<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241561/original/file-20181022-105767-dji4g9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A federal Religious Discrimination Act would introduce important protections for Australia’s religiously diverse population.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/618694655?src=BIHYmhJbbIu-gJuP4HYiwQ-2-80&size=huge_jpg">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="https://www.pmc.gov.au/domestic-policy/religious-freedom-review">Ruddock review on Religious Freedom</a> has recommended the creation of a Religious Discrimination Act as part of its <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/read-the-full-20-recommendations-from-the-religious-freedom-review-20181011-p50918.html">20 recommendations</a>. </p>
<p>Some have argued there is <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-australia-does-not-need-a-religious-discrimination-act-99666">no pressing need</a> for a Religious Discrimination Act. <a href="https://www.humanrights.gov.au/quick-guide/12091">All states and territories</a>, except South Australia and New South Wales, currently prohibit discrimination on the basis of a person’s religion. Religious discrimination is also prevented at the workplace under the federal <a href="https://www.fairwork.gov.au/how-we-will-help/templates-and-guides/fact-sheets/rights-and-obligations/workplace-discrimination">Fair Work Act</a>. </p>
<p>However, a Religious Discrimination Act is necessary to introduce other important protections for Australia’s <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/religion/religion-and-the-census-australias-unique-relationship-to-faith-/10095652">religiously diverse population</a>. Besides Christians, who make up <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mediareleasesbyReleaseDate/7E65A144540551D7CA258148000E2B85">about half the population</a>, Australia is home to other religious minorities, including Muslims (2.6% of the population), Hindus 1.9% and Sikhs 0.5%. A Religious Discrimination Act would also protect the growing number of Australians who identify as having no religion (30%). </p>
<p>As Chief Justice John Latham explained in the <a href="http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs5/67CLR116.html">Jehovah’s Witnesses case</a> of 1943:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…it should not be forgotten that such a provision as s. 116 [of the Constitution] is not required for the protection of the religion of a majority. The religion of the majority of people can look after itself. Section 116 is required to protect the religion (or absence of religion) of minorities, and, in particular, of unpopular minorities.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-australia-does-not-need-a-religious-discrimination-act-99666">Why Australia does not need a Religious Discrimination Act</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Religious discrimination is not a new issue</h2>
<p>Religious discrimination is not a new discussion in Australia. Twenty years ago, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission <a href="https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/pdf/human_rights/religion/article_18_religious_freedom.pdf">noted that</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Despite the legal protections that apply in different jurisdictions, many Australians suffer discrimination on the basis of religious belief or non-belief, including members of both mainstream and non-mainstream religions and those of no religious persuasion. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Submissions received by the commission detailed the areas in which people experienced religious discrimination. For example, Pagan groups found it difficult to hire facilities to conduct events, while Muslim, Buddhist and Sikh communities reported having problems with planning authorities. Some people said they kept their religions a secret at work for fear of being fired or denied promotions. </p>
<p>The commission recommended the introduction of a federal Religious Freedom Act, which included provisions prohibiting discrimination on the basis of a person’s religion. </p>
<h2>What’s the state of religious discrimination in Australia?</h2>
<p>Australians already enjoy a relatively high level of <a href="https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/human-freedom-index-files/human-freedom-index-2016-update-3.pdf">religious freedom</a>. However, this does not mean that people are never discriminated against on the basis of their religion. </p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/controversial-parliament-house-burqa-ban-dumped-20141020-118j5h.html">2014</a>, for instance, the parliament banned people wearing face coverings from entering the open public viewing gallery in Parliament House. Instead, they were relegated to the glass viewing area usually reserved for school children. The effect of the ban was to discriminate against Muslim women who wear burqas or niqabs as part of their religious devotion.</p>
<p>During the same-sex marriage postal survey, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-11/ssm-same-sex-marriage-respectful-debate-ugly-side/8996500">there were reports</a> of people claiming they were discriminated against because they supported the “No” campaign. An entertainer who worked as a contractor for a children’s party business was fired after changing her Facebook profile frame to one that included the words “<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-20/fair-work-to-probe-sacking-over-same-sex-marriage-survey/8964558">it’s OK to vote no</a>”. She claimed she was discriminated against due to her Christian beliefs. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-gay-wedding-cake-dilemma-when-religious-freedom-and-lgbti-rights-intersect-93070">The 'gay wedding cake' dilemma: when religious freedom and LGBTI rights intersect</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Under the <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx">International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights</a>, Australia is also obligated to enact laws prohibiting both religious discrimination and vilification. </p>
<p>Religious vilification is behaviour that incites hatred, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of a person or group of people because of their religion. Only three states – Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania – currently prohibit religious vilification.</p>
<p>In response to concerns about the tone of the same-sex marriage debate, the federal government passed a temporary <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017A00096">Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Act 2017 (Cth)</a>. The act prohibited vilification on the basis of a person’s “view in relation to the marriage law survey question” or a person’s “religious conviction, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.” It automatically lapsed on November 15 2017, the day the survey results were released.</p>
<p>Without the full details of the Ruddock review, it is unclear whether the proposed Religious Discrimination Act would include provisions prohibiting religious vilification. </p>
<h2>What would a Religious Discrimination Act do?</h2>
<p>Introducing a Religious Discrimination Act would also fix an anomaly in the existing Racial Discrimination Act. <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s9.html">Section 9 of this act</a> prohibits discrimination on the basis of a person’s “race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin”. </p>
<p>Ethnic origin has been interpreted by the courts to cover both Sikhs and Jews.
By contrast, Muslims and Christians are not covered by the Racial Discrimination Act, as they do not constitute a single ethnic group. </p>
<p>But as the Federal Court of Australia explained in <a href="http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2002/1080.html">Jones v Scully</a>, ethnic origin covers more than a person’s racial identity. It includes groups who have shared customs, beliefs, traditions and characteristics derived from their histories. </p>
<p>Those claiming discrimination on the basis of their lack of religious beliefs are also not covered under the Racial Discrimination Act. This creates a discrepancy in the treatment of different religious groups under the law. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ruddock-report-constrains-not-expands-federal-religious-exemptions-96347">Ruddock report constrains, not expands, federal religious exemptions</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>As Australia continues to debate the best way to protect freedom of religion, while also guaranteeing the rights of other groups, such as the LGBTI community, balance and compromise will be necessary. </p>
<p>As part of that balancing act, the government has already <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/oct/13/morrison-caves-to-labor-on-gay-students-in-discrimination-law-reform-push">announced</a> it will remove some religious exemptions from the Sex Discrimination Act, making clear, for instance, that students cannot be expelled from religious schools on the basis of their sexuality.</p>
<p>Other restrictions, such as requiring religious organisations to be <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/religion/transparency-is-the-way-forward-for-religious-exemptions/10379256">transparent</a> in their use of exemptions in anti-discrimination legislation such as the Sex Discrimination Act, may also be needed.</p>
<p>A Religious Discrimination Act should also be part of the compromise and balance. Religious discrimination may not be an everyday occurrence for many Australians. However, this does not mean the law should ignore those who have been discriminated against because of their faith or lack of it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/105132/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Renae Barker is the Diocesan Advocate of the Anglian Diocese of Bunbury and advises the Bishop, Bishop in Council, Trustees and Synod on matters of Church law.</span></em></p>Australians already enjoy a relatively high level of religious freedom. However, discrimination and vilification on the basis of people’s faith still exists.Renae Barker, Lecturer in Law, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1031982018-09-17T10:52:07Z2018-09-17T10:52:07ZAs Cuba backs gay marriage, churches oppose the government’s plan<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236240/original/file-20180913-177959-1lcg666.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">As gay Cubans gain more rights, opposition is also growing.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Desmond Boylan</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/cuba-prepara-el-camino-a-la-legalizacion-del-matrimonio-gay-y-las-iglesias-rompen-su-silencio-102220">Leer en español</a>.</em></p>
<p>Cubans are debating a <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/08/cuba-proposes-biggest-constitutional-reform-decades-180814093108107.html">constitutional reform</a> that, among other legal changes, would open the door to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/23/cubas-new-constitution-paves-way-for-same-sex-marriage">gay marriage</a>. It would also prohibit discrimination against people based on sex, gender, sexual orientation and gender identity in the communist nation. </p>
<p>The proposed new <a href="http://media.cubadebate.cu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/2018_07_25-21_10-Tabloide-Constituci%C3%B3n-sin-precio-BN.pdf">Constitution</a>, drafted by a special commission within Cuba’s National Assembly, was <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-44971445">unveiled in July</a>. If the National Assembly and <a href="https://theconversation.com/cubas-new-president-what-to-expect-of-miguel-diaz-canel-95187">President Miguel Díaz-Canel</a> approve the document after a Feb. 24, 2019 public referendum, marriage would be defined as a “union between two people.” </p>
<p>Cuba’s <a href="http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/cuba.htm">1976 Constitution</a>, known as the Carta Magna, defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. And it does not fully protect private enterprise, freedom of association or allows for same-sex marriage – despite <a href="https://theconversation.com/castros-conundrum-finding-a-post-communist-model-cuba-can-follow-81242">growing social acceptance and political tolerance for such rights</a>.</p>
<p>Emigrés who retain Cuban nationality have been invited to participate in Cuba’s public debate on the constitutional reform – though not to vote on it – via a <a href="https://constitucion.minrex.gob.cu">digital forum</a> run by the Foreign Ministry – a level of citizen outreach that’s “<a href="https://twitter.com/SoberonGuzman/status/1025405043682492416">unprecedented</a>” in Cuba, says Ernesto Soberón, the ministry’s director of consular affairs and Cubans residing overseas. </p>
<h2>Cuba’s political process opens up</h2>
<p>This lively, broad-based debate is a sign of how much Cuba – a main subject of <a href="https://vimeo.com/145156796">my research</a> as a <a href="https://sjcny.academia.edu/Mar%C3%ADaIsabelAlfonso/CurriculumVitae">professor of literature and cultural studies</a> – has <a href="https://theconversation.com/in-cuba-the-post-fidel-era-began-ten-years-ago-71720">changed</a> in recent years. </p>
<p>President Raúl Castro, who took over for his ailing older brother Fidel <a href="https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/fidel-castro-en/article117213333.html">in 2006</a>, began to open Cuba’s economy to foreign investment and normalized diplomatic relations with the United States, which has <a href="https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/cuba/">maintained its economic embargo on the Communist island since 1962</a>. </p>
<p>Raúl Castro also worked with President Barack Obama to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/when-president-obama-moved-to-normalize-relations-with-cuba/2017/12/11/35c86772-c326-11e7-84bc-5e285c7f4512_story.html">ease some economic restrictions</a> on Cuba.</p>
<p>Castro <a href="https://theconversation.com/cubas-new-president-what-to-expect-of-miguel-diaz-canel-95187">stepped down</a> in April 2018, handing power over to the much younger Díaz-Canel.</p>
<p>Cuba has moderately amended its <a href="http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/cuba.htm">Carta Magna</a> just three times. A <a href="http://bohemia.cu/historia/2018/06/en-que-consistio-la-primera-reforma-a-la-constitucion-de-1976/">1978 constitutional reform</a> created an official channel for youth political participation, for example, while that of 1992 liberalized <a href="http://www.temas.cult.cu/sites/default/files/articulos_academicos_en_pdf/16%20Mesa%20constit.pdf">elements of Cuba’s socialist economic model</a> to revitalize Cuba’s economy.</p>
<p>Today’s proposed reform is <a href="http://www.granma.cu/cuba/2018-07-05/diez-puntos-clave-de-la-actual-reforma-constitucional-en-cuba-05-07-2018-17-07-53">a complete overhaul</a>. It would add 87 articles, change 113 and eliminate 13, even a section of Article 5 affirming Cuba’s “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/22/cuba-ditches-aim-of-building-communism-from-draft-constitution">advance toward a Communist society</a>.”</p>
<p>Beyond legalizing gay marriage, the new Constitution would protect private property, limit the presidential term to five years and introduce the role of prime minister. </p>
<p>Intense debate has surrounded the possibility of marriage equality in Cuba, and not just within the government’s <a href="http://www.europapress.es/internacional/noticia-comienza-cuba-debate-publico-modernizacion-constitucion-20180814005647.html">official public meetings</a>. Cubans are also discussing and debating gay marriage with neighbors and friends, in the streets and online – a departure from Cuba’s traditionally <a href="http://www.themarknews.com/2015/01/08/no-es-facil-threats-and-opportunities-in-cuba-u-s-relations/">more top-down style of government</a>.</p>
<h2>The rise of gay rights in Cuba</h2>
<p>Cuba’s nascent LGBTQ rights movement also began under Raúl Castro, thanks in large part to the leadership of <a href="http://www.washingtonblade.com/2017/05/02/mariela-castro-says-father-supportive-pro-lgbt-efforts/">his daughter Mariela Castro</a>, a National Assembly member and president of the semi-governmental <a href="http://www.cenesex.org/construccion/">Centro Nacional de Educación Sexual</a>, founded in 1987 to advance sexual awareness in Cuba. </p>
<p>A lack of opinion polling makes it difficult to measure Cuban public support for gay marriage. But acceptance of homosexuality, both within the government and in civil society, has grown appreciably.</p>
<p>During the 1960s and 1970s, homosexuality was considered incompatible with Cuba’s <a href="http://www.jornada.com.mx/2010/08/31/mundo/026e1mun">model of the revolutionary man</a>: atheist, heterosexual and anti-bourgeoisie. Gay people, active Christians and others who defied these ideals were sent to <a href="https://jovencuba.com/2012/02/10/quinquenio-gris-la-umap/comment-page-2/">military work camps</a> to “strengthen” their revolutionary character.</p>
<p>Today, the Cuban government appears to accept homosexuality as part of socialist society. In 2008 the National Assembly approved a law <a href="http://www.ipsnoticias.net/2008/06/salud-cuba-se-aprueban-operaciones-de-cambio-de-sexo/">allowing sexual reasignment surgery</a>.</p>
<p>La Habana holds annual marches against homophobia and transphobia and cities across the island celebrate the <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/cubans-show-lgbtq-pride-flags-dancing-havana-parade-n873746">Gay Pride parade</a>. </p>
<h2>The church emerges as an opposition force</h2>
<p>But legacies of intolerance remain.</p>
<p>The Assembly of God Pentecostal Church, the Evangelical League and the Methodist Church of Cuba, among other Christian churches, have issued a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1571539782969501&set=a.187453318044828&type=3&theater">joint statement</a> opposing gay marriage. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236231/original/file-20180913-177962-76lxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236231/original/file-20180913-177962-76lxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=709&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236231/original/file-20180913-177962-76lxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=709&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236231/original/file-20180913-177962-76lxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=709&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236231/original/file-20180913-177962-76lxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=891&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236231/original/file-20180913-177962-76lxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=891&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236231/original/file-20180913-177962-76lxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=891&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Traditionally, religion has taken a back seat to politics in Cuba.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Cristobal Herrera</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Their public letter, published on June 8, argues that such “gender ideology” has “nothing whatsoever to do with our culture, our independence struggles nor with the historic leaders of the Revolution.”</p>
<p>Cuba is a <a href="https://oncubamagazine.com/sociedad/nada-ajeno-la-constitucion-la-laicidad-partido/">secular country</a> where political ideology has historically trumped religion. Religious opposition to a government proposal is rare.</p>
<p>It is even more unusual for the church to attempt to mobilize the Cuban public, as some Christian leaders are trying to do now. </p>
<p>According to the Cuban magazine <a href="http://www.lajiribilla.cu/articulo/campana-callejera-en-la-habana-contra-matrimonios-homosexuales">La Jiribilla</a>, preachers on the streets have been handing out fliers saying gay marriage defies God’s “<a href="https://www.facebook.com/iglecuba/photos/a.420045238065098/1802367976499477/?type=3&theater">original design</a>” for the family. </p>
<h2>LBGTQ activists answer</h2>
<p>Gay rights groups and feminists are <a href="https://asambleafeminista.wordpress.com/2018/07/23/luces-para-un-desembarco-fundamentalismo-religioso-en-cuba/">responding</a> with a creative show of force. </p>
<p>Clandestina, Cuba’s first online store, and the tattoo studio <a href="http://lamarcabodyart.com/">La Marca</a> are spearheading a campaign called “<a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10216143757807924&set=a.10200604835184570&type=3&theater">Cuban design</a>,” celebrating a “very original family” – phrasing that rebuts Christian claims about God’s design.</p>
<p>“More than anything, this is an issue of free expression,” Roberto Ramos Mori, of La Marca, said in an email. “The way to push back against hate is calmly, with intelligence – and, of course, humor.” </p>
<p>Cubans with internet access use the hashtag <a href="https://www.facebook.com/search/str/%23mifamiliaesoriginal/stories-keyword/stories-public">#mifamiliaesoriginal</a> to signal their support for LGBTQ rights on social media. </p>
<p>The church’s powerful opposition to marriage equality reflects a strategy commonly deployed across Latin America, <a href="https://asambleafeminista.wordpress.com/2018/07/23/luces-para-un-desembarco-fundamentalismo-religioso-en-cuba/">says the Cuban feminist</a> Ailynn Torres Santana. </p>
<p>Catholic and evangelical groups in Ecuador used similar language, for example, to <a href="http://www.conferenciaepiscopal.ec/index.php/comunicados-y-boletines/721-carta-abierta">oppose a 2017 law</a> allowing citizens to <a href="https://oig.cepal.org/sites/default/files/2018_ecu_leyintegralprevencionerradicacionviolenciagenero.pdf">choose their own gender identifier</a>, she says. In response to the legislation – which recognized gender as “a binary that is socially and culturally created, patriarchal and heteronormative” – churches called for “citizens to live in harmony with nature.”</p>
<p>Similar scenes played out when both <a href="http://www.pikaramagazine.com/2016/12/la-mentira-de-la-ideologia-de-genero-en-la-paz-de-colombia/">Colombia</a> and <a href="https://www.actuall.com/familia/nueve-diez-brasilenos-rechaza-la-ideologia-genero-las-escuelas/">Brazil</a> advanced LGBTQ rights, with Christian groups dismissing any attempt to change traditional gender roles as the “result” of what they pejoratively call “<a href="https://peru21.pe/lima/debes-tenerle-miedo-ideologia-genero-234797">gender ideology</a>.”</p>
<h2>What’s next for Cuba</h2>
<p>Gay marriage is not the only battlefield for Cuba’s newly empowered churches.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/el-flagelo-del-aborto-ilegal-en-america-latina-hay-democracia-sin-derechos-reproductivos-82945">Abortion</a>, illegal in <a href="https://theconversation.com/argentina-rejects-legal-abortion-and-not-all-catholics-are-celebrating-101346">most of Latin America</a>, has been a woman’s right in Cuba since 1965. Traditionally, not even Cuba’s Catholic church publicly opposed it.</p>
<p>Recently, though, Christians in Cuba have begun publicly <a href="http://www.ipsnoticias.net/2017/08/el-derecho-al-aborto-en-cuba-encara-nuevos-retos-50-anos-despues/">advocating</a> against <a href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=278483742927287&id=100022969907193">abortion</a>.</p>
<p>If conservative religious groups manage to prevent gay marriage in Cuba, I believe it would be a setback for social progress on the island.</p>
<p>But the mere existence of alternative voices in Cuba’s public sphere – including that of its churches – is, itself, proof that the country has already changed.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/103198/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>María Isabel Alfonso is co-founder of the not-for-profit group Cuban Americans For Engagement, which works to improve diplomatic relations between Cuba and the United States.</span></em></p>Cuba is avowedly secular. But as the country debates a new Constitution that would protect LGBT rights, churches have come out strongly against gay marriage — a sign of change on the Communist island.María Isabel Alfonso, Professor of Spanish , St. Joseph's College of New YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/998802018-07-12T11:07:04Z2018-07-12T11:07:04ZGrattan on Friday: Little upside for Malcolm Turnbull in debate over religious freedom<p>One would think the last thing Malcolm Turnbull needs is a new round of the culture wars - this one over whether extra protections are needed for religion - just as he’s coming up to next year’s election.</p>
<p>But that seems likely when the government finally releases the Ruddock <a href="https://www.pmc.gov.au/domestic-policy/religious-freedom-review">report on religious freedom</a>.</p>
<p>The review was set up essentially to salve the hurt of those in Coalition ranks on the losing side of the same-sex marriage debate. Unfortunately in politics, short-term gestures can come back as longer-term distractions.</p>
<p>The government won’t be putting out the report before the July 28 byelections, and that tells us something. There are concerns about how this issue – the detailed carriage of which is with Attorney-General Christian Porter - will play in the public domain.</p>
<p>We don’t know what former Howard government minister Philip Ruddock and his panel have found – in particular what they’ve recommended about legislation to protect religious freedom.</p>
<p>But cabinet minister Dan Tehan has fired an early shot in the battle with his St Thomas More lecture, delivered in late June and run in The Australian last Saturday.</p>
<p>Tehan targeted two fronts: what he called “the creeping encroachment from the state on religious belief” and the “the use of political correctness to marginalise and silence the religious perspective”. A modern problem, he said, is “where religious freedom rubs against laws written to protect other rights”.</p>
<p>He’s concerned about what he sees as inadequacies in the present state and federal legal framework; he urges a Religious Discrimination Act to protect against discrimination on religious grounds and ensure other laws, such as state sex-discrimination acts, don’t restrict religious freedom more than is required.</p>
<p>In this debate, the onus is surely on the advocates of change to establish that present protections aren’t adequate. Tehan’s evidence (such as a complaint against Catholic anti same-sex marriage literature that was withdrawn) seems slight. Liberal senator James Paterson, who supports legislation, also was light on convincing examples when interviewed this week.</p>
<p>But it is the second part of Tehan’s argument that is more disturbing.</p>
<p>“The reality for Australians today is that there is another threat to religious freedom and it does not come from the application of various laws,” he said. “Rather, it comes from what former prime minister John Howard describes as ‘minority fundamentalism’ – which he calls, ‘the assumption that long-held custom, practices and beliefs represent or implies an attack on those who do not support it’”.</p>
<p>Tehan said: “We have woken up in a nightmare where the value of your contribution to a debate depends on what you claim to be a victim of.</p>
<p>"When the forces of political correctness continually marginalise and dismiss contributions to debate informed by a reasonable religious belief it sends a very clear message: you are not welcome here, your views are not welcome here, and your religion is not welcome here’”.</p>
<p>He gives the examples of the boycott of Coopers Brewery after its involvement with the Bible Society in the same-sex marriage debate, and the backlash against rugby union’s Israel Folau after he denounced homosexuality. </p>
<p>“There is more disrespect directed at people who share their faith publicly,” Tehan maintains.</p>
<p>But what are we looking at here? We can condemn retaliation against a business that has engaged in some well-motivated political act, but we’d surely not want to curb the right of people to protest in this way (provided it’s done peacefully).</p>
<p>And in talking about “political correctness” let us remember this can come in very different stripes, from the right as well as the left, and can be subjective.</p>
<p>When young Muslim activist Yassmin Abdel-Magied posted her “LEST. WE. FORGET. (Manus, Nauru, Syria, Palestine …)” she was pilloried - not just criticised robustly - for expressing a provocative and disrespectful view. Her most ferocious attackers, including high-profile Liberals, approached her post from what some might characterise as their own school of “political correctness”.</p>
<p>Tehan fears the decline in the proportion of Australians who profess themselves Christians. Citing census figures, he said that while “Christianity remains the most common religion, practiced by 52% of the population”, the proportion is falling, especially among the young. The trend will lead to the day when “the Australians who are part of any religion will become a minority.</p>
<p>"In preparation for that day, we need to consider how we will defend religious rights in this country from political correctness”. He exhorts people of faith to stand up for their views, but this is not enough. “Given the changing nature of the law in Australia, and including the flow towards increasing secularism, we need a Religious Discrimination Act”.</p>
<p>Of course believers should fight for their causes. But a fall in Christian adherence does not make a case for a new law to protect a religious minority – who often might have split opinions anyway.</p>
<p>The legalisation of same-sex marriage was an exercise in democracy in our secular society; the plebiscite’s result reflected how views had changed over a few years. Church voices in opposition were not suppressed - they just lost the argument and so failed to garner the numbers.</p>
<p>There is no credible reason to believe the opportunity for religious views to be put on various issues will be stifled in the future. It may be that they will be rejected, but that is completely different.</p>
<p>From the government’s point of view, there is little upside in the coming debate.</p>
<p>Talk of a Religious Discrimination Act would trigger calls for a wider bill of rights – somewhere the government won’t be going.</p>
<p>And there is always a risk with such legislation of unintended consequences – witness the fallout around some terms in the Racial Discrimination Act’s section 18C.</p>
<p>The strong proponents within the Coalition of this new protection are coming from a Christian point of view. But protection for religion would extend across faiths, potentially raising issues about practices of some non-Christian religions that, while not contravening Australian law, mightn’t fit so well with Australian values. Do we want to get into that mire?</p>
<p>It’s hard to see the religion issue being a vote-changer for Turnbull. The Liberals might hope to wedge Labor, but the ALP has proved skillful at dodging wedges. There could be a greater danger of it dividing Coalition MPs.</p>
<p>The most sensible course would be to put the issue on pause. But that’s not how these things go.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99880/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The government won’t be putting out the report before the July 28 byelections, and that tells us something. There are concerns about how this issue will run in the public domain.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/977832018-07-02T20:10:36Z2018-07-02T20:10:36ZSix months after marriage equality there’s much to celebrate – and still much to do<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/225620/original/file-20180702-116114-g1v623.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Virginia Edwards and Christine Foster were among the first same-sex couples to be married in Australia.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Joel Carrett</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It has been six months since <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5G0caWE7p8">Australia declared</a> that marriage is no longer an exclusively heterosexual institution. In that time, approximately <a href="http://junkee.com/marriage-equality-numbers/161455">2,500 same-sex couples</a> have been married, with NSW having the most weddings, closely followed by Victoria and Queensland. Many more couples, who married overseas before marriage equality was achieved here, have finally had their marriages recognised under Australian law. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2071.0%7E2016%7EMain%20Features%7ESame-Sex%20Couples%7E85">2016 Census</a> revealed that there are 46,800 same-sex couples living together in Australia. Of these couples, 3,142 reported they were the husband or wife of someone of the same sex (presumably because they were married overseas). If we combine this figure with the number of same-sex marriages registered in the last six months, it appears that over 10% of same-sex couples who live together are now married.</p>
<h2>What’s changed?</h2>
<p>During the postal survey, the “No” campaign warned of dire consequences if the institution of marriage was opened up to non-heterosexual couples. There was a <a href="https://theconversation.com/marriage-vote-how-advocacy-ads-exploit-our-emotions-in-divisive-debates-83501">stream of ads</a> asserting that boys would start wearing dresses to school, students would role-play being in same-sex relationships, and radical LGBT sex and gender education would become mandatory. Safe Schools – a national program to combat bullying of LGBT students – came under <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-will-safe-schools-be-mandatory-if-same-sex-marriage-is-legalised-84437">particularly heavy and sustained attack</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-anglican-church-has-hardened-its-stance-against-same-sex-marriage-98149">How the Anglican Church has hardened its stance against same-sex marriage</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>So have any of these fears been realised? The answer seems to be a resounding “no”. If anything, education about sexual orientation and gender identity within schools is becoming more restricted.</p>
<p>For example, the South Australian government <a href="https://indaily.com.au/news/2018/06/18/concern-program-gap-cut-safe-schools-funding/">has ceased to fund</a> the Safe Schools program, two years before the service provider’s contract was due to expire. As a result, that program will end in secondary schools on July 13. The government has indicated that it will be replaced with a general anti-bullying program, but this fails to recognise that <a href="https://www.beyondblue.org.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/bw0258-lgbti-mental-health-and-suicide-2013-2nd-edition.pdf?sfvrsn=2">LGBTI people have significantly poorer mental health and higher rates of
suicide than other Australians</a> because of the discrimination and bullying they are subjected. </p>
<p>In Victoria, Opposition Leader Matthew Guy has vowed to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jan/24/victorian-opposition-vows-to-scrap-safe-schools-and-teach-western-principles">scrap the Safe Schools program</a> if the Coalition wins the next election. So rather than marriage equality being the catalyst for more inclusive education, the opposite may be true.</p>
<p>The campaign around the marriage equality survey also saw opponents assert that allowing same-sex couples to marry would lead to a significant infringement on religious freedom. To allay these concerns, the Turnbull government initiated an <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/ruddock-examine-religious-freedom-protection-australia">inquiry</a> into whether Australian law adequately protects religious freedom. The panel delivered its report last month, but the government has not yet released it to the public. </p>
<p>There is <a href="https://probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2018/05/religious-freedom-review-reignites-discrimination-exemptions-debate/">concern </a>among human rights advocates that rather than limiting the exemptions that religious organisations currently enjoy from anti-discrimination laws, the government will expand the extent to which people can legitimately be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.</p>
<p>Such concerns are not baseless, if the American experience is anything to go by. In the US, once opponents of marriage equality had lost that battle, they shifted their focus to arguing that service providers who have religious beliefs that reject homosexuality should be allowed to treat LGBTIQ people less favourably. This was the argument run in the US Supreme Court case of <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/">Masterpiece Cakeshop</a>, in which a Colorado baker refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. </p>
<p>Although the Supreme Court upheld the claim of the baker, it did so on the narrow ground that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission handled the original discrimination complaint against Masterpiece Cakeshop in a biased and unfair manner. The judges were very clear in stating that service providers should not be entitled to refuse to provide goods or services for same-sex weddings. Justice Kennedy noted that allowing discrimination against same-sex couples would cause:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>a community-wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights laws that ensure equal access to goods, services, and public accommodations. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The <a href="https://twitter.com/LyleShelton/status/1003828631720771584">Australian Christian Lobby</a> has already suggested that this decision lends support to their argument that bakers, florists, motels and even lawyers should be able to refuse to provide goods and services in connection with same-sex weddings. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1003828631720771584"}"></div></p>
<p>However, as my colleague Luke Beck <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/not-much-comfort-for-lyle-shelton-and-friends-in-us-cakeshop-case-20180605-p4zjm9.html">observed</a>, there is nothing in the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision to support that position. On the contrary, “The Masterpiece case says that people who are accused of discrimination are entitled to a fair hearing and that gay people are entitled to dignified treatment.”</p>
<h2>More to be done</h2>
<p>Amending the <a href="http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/">Marriage Act</a> to allow same-sex couples to wed was a significant step forward. But it is not a panacea. Law reform alone will never lead to true equality. South Africa is a stark reminder of this. It has had constitutional protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity since 1996, but it is still an extremely dangerous place for LGBT people, with high rates of violent hate-based crimes. A <a href="https://www.news24.com/Analysis/lgbt-community-still-faces-high-levels-of-violence-report-20171204">2017 report</a> found four out of ten LGBT South Africans knew someone who had been murdered “for being or suspected of being” lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/on-marriage-equality-australias-progressive-instincts-have-been-crushed-by-political-failure-83796">On marriage equality, Australia's progressive instincts have been crushed by political failure</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In Australia, the reform of marriage laws that we witnessed six months ago is just one piece of the jigsaw puzzle, albeit an important one. But equally important is changing the hearts and minds of individuals who continue to oppose equal rights for LGBT people.</p>
<p>Amending laws contributes to transforming public opinion, but achieving long term change requires a more holistic approach. The elimination of discrimination against LGBT people won’t be achieved until we have increased positive representation of sexual and gender diversity in <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/sexuality/fast-lane/article/2016/08/10/why-lgbt-characters-matter-especially-movies?cid=inbody:the-key-to-convincing-conservatives-to-support-samesex-marriage">films</a>], <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-have-marriage-equality-now-we-need-lgbtqi-inclusive-sexuality-education-in-schools-87501">education</a>, the <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00918369.2011.546729">media</a> and from <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/why-the-faith-communitys-support-of-lgbt-people-cant-be-conditional_us_57618062e4b05e4be8606aa2">religious leaders</a>. </p>
<p>We will know we have achieved true equality for LGBT people when we not only have laws that prevent a person being fired from their job or denied a service because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, but we also no longer have people arguing that they should be entitled to do so.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/97783/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paula Gerber does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Six months after same-sex marriage became legal in Australia, none of the disasters the “no” side warned about have come to fruition, but there is still some way to go to achieve real equality.Paula Gerber, Professor of Human Rights Law, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.