Celebrants should not be free to discriminate against couples who ask them to perform a marriage ceremony.
The proposed exemption for civil marriage celebrants undermines the aims and nature of Australia’s flourishing civil celebrant program.
It is conceivable that ‘no’ campaigners never believed their views would prevail in public opinion.
Churches have been exempt from sex discrimination laws for years – now those opposed to same-sex marriage want that exemption to be extended to individuals.
The postal vote hasn’t really resolved the marriage equality issue for Turnbull.
After an ugly and unnecessary postal survey, Malcolm Turnbull has had a win – but the conservatives in his government will still be pitching for a fight.
As the legal battle heats up, James Paterson’s bill demonstrates an unconscionable misunderstanding about the indivisibility of human rights.
Now that the battle for marriage equality has been won, the fight over the legislation to enable it will heat up.
If marriage is to be redefined, substantial protections should be provided for conscientious objectors.
Conscience protections for those opposed to same-sex marriage should not be seen as excusing bigotry. Rather, it is a legitimate means of best promoting everyone’s welfare.
Canberra has asked for a national postal vote on marriage reform - could a sample survey be a better option?
AAP Image/Lukas Coch
Australians will be asked to complete a voluntary, non-binding postal vote on marriage reform. Wouldn’t it be easier - and cheaper - to do a sample survey instead?
Respect the people in any same-sex marriage debate, but you don’t have to respect their views.
Your ideas are not immune to criticism just because you express them with sincerity: people are worthy of respect, ideas are not.
The plebiscite has been defeated, but the fight to end discrimination against gay couples who want to marry will continue.
Now that same-sex marriage will not be put to a national vote, it is up to the Prime Minister to ensure that marriage equality is written into law.
In the US and Ireland there have been headline court cases of bakers refusing to make cakes for same-sex weddings.
As the US example shows, freedom of religion should not be allowed to morph into the right to discriminate.
Heterosexual couples who believe in marriage equality, and the civil celebrants who marry them, are using wedding ceremonies to protest marriage law in Australia.
Given the ubiquity of civil marriage and support for marriage equality, how do heterosexual brides and grooms who support marriage equality manage legal requirements at their weddings?
The LGBTI community fears the nastiness a plebiscite on marriage equality could bring forth.
The push for marriage equality is not just about walking down the aisle in matching outfits; it’s become a potent symbol of equality and acceptance.
A minister of religion is not obliged to solemnise any marriage.
Ministers of religion who support marriage equality would be able to challenge the Marriage Act in the High Court. They would stand a good chance of winning.
The plebiscite on whether Australia should legalise same-sex marriage is constitutionally unnecessary.
It’s the plebiscite Australia doesn’t have to have. But if the plebiscite on marriage equality goes ahead, how should it be designed?
The world is recognising that the issue of same-sex marriage is a matter of what state law, not religious doctrine, says, to the extent that Luxembourg’s Prime Minister Xavier Bettel (right) and Gauthier Destenay recently married.
Same-sex marriage is about state recognition of the union between two people and is a political issue. Religious belief can apply in a church and in individual decisions, but not to a secular state.
The high court has ruled that New South Wales must allow Norrie to legally identify as having a non-specific gender.
Have you ever asked yourself why institutions continue to demand that we identify ourselves as male or female on every form? What difference does gender make to my bank account, to the tax office, or to…