AME and Cardinal George Pell engage in a dialogue about marriage equality and religion …
On December 20th 2010 AME requested a meeting with the Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, to discuss our concerns about a campaign by the Australian Catholic Church against marriage equality. On December 22nd Cardinal Pell replied, saying a meeting might be possible. On December 24th AME responded.
The three letters provide an insight into the debate about marriage equality and religion and are posted below in archaeological order (the oldest at the bottom). Cardinal Pell has also posted our first letter and his response on his own website. It can be accessed by clicking here.
***
24 December 2010
From: Peter Furness, Acting National Convener, Australian Marriage Equality
To: His Eminence, Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney
Your Eminence,
We appreciate your quick and detailed reply to our letter. We address the various points raised in your correspondence, below.
The distinction between civil and religious marriages
On the substantive issue of allowing same-sex couples to marry, our position remains that there is a clear distinction between civil and religious marriage. We respect your religious definition of marriage as “…a unique reality which cannot be changed, regardless of how we might change the language we use for it? The reality of marriage is that it is about a man, a woman and children.” However, we note three things.
Firstly, the legal definition of marriage has changed significantly over the years. For example, no-fault divorce is allowed under civil marriage law despite the fact that some faiths such as yours do not recognise legal divorce or marry divorced partners.
Secondly, there is no requirement in the Marriage Act for marrying partners to conceive or raise children. To exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage, but allow infertile, heterosexual couples to marry, is a double-standard. We agree with you that there is a cultural association between marriage and children. However, we believe this is an argument for allowing same-sex marriages. An increasing number of same-sex couples are raising children. These children deserve access to the same legal protection and social recognition as other children. We believe a majority of Australians agree. Opinion polls consistently show a greater majority of Australians with small children support marriage equality than Australians generally.
Third, there is no requirement in the Marriage Act for marrying partners to adhere to any particular religious doctrine, or to have any faith at all. To exclude same-sex couples from marriage, while allowing atheists to marry, is again, a double-standard. The clear distinction between marriage and faith is reflected in the fact that almost 70% of Australians are married by civil celebrants and do not marry in church.
Given all this, we re-iterate our request that you reciprocate our respect for your religious definition of marriage by acknowledging the right of same-sex partners to marry under civil law.
Objections to civil marriage equality
In regard to recognising our equal rights in civil law, you refer to three general concerns you have.
One is that “the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion…has been significantly eroded and constrained wherever same-sex marriage has been legalised”. We have not seen any evidence of this. In those countries which allow same-sex couples to marry, churches and clergy are not compelled to perform these marriages. The same will occur in Australia. Just as Catholic clergy may now refuse to marry divorced partners, they will be able to refuse to marry same-sex partners. Similarly, Catholic schools will continue to be free to teach that Catholic marriage cannot be between two people of the same sex.
In regard to freedom of religious conscience, surely the greater concern must be for those faiths and clergy who seek to solemnise same-sex marriages but are prevented from having these marriages recognised by the state in the same way as the heterosexual marriages solemnised by your faith. They even risk losing their legal right to solemnise heterosexual marriages by attempting to recognise same-sex marriages. It is important to recognise that religious doctrine on marriage changes over time and differs within and between different faiths. For example, early Christians married under Roman civil law and did not observe marriage as a religious rite, while same-sex unions were solemnised in special Catholic and Orthodox liturgies for many centuries. Similarly, many contemporary Christians believe it is a religious duty to treat same and opposite-sex unions equally. It is marriage discrimination which constrains their religious freedom, not marriage equality.
The other point to make in regard to freedom of religion is that fear of the violation of this right has been put forward as an objection to gay law reform many times in the past, without that fear coming to pass. It was an objection to the decriminalisation of homosexuality, to anti-discrimination laws, to de facto relationship laws, and to civil partnership schemes, yet, in retrospect, we can’t see how freedom of religion has been “eroded” by any of these important steps forward. As genuine as you and others may be in your fear that marriage equality will diminish religious freedom, we believe the achievement of equality will prove this fear baseless.
The second of your concerns appears to be that marriage equality will “threaten to further erode the family, with all the suffering this brings for individuals and the community”. Again, we see no evidence of this from overseas. Indeed, in some of those nations with marriage equality, more young heterosexuals are marrying and married heterosexual partners are staying together longer than before. If you have any evidence to the contrary, particularly from countries which allow same-sex marriages and have a strong Catholic tradition, like Spain, Portugal, Argentina and Mexico, we would be keen to see it.
In contrast, there is a great deal of evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry strengthens our families and alleviates a great deal of the stigma and suffering experienced by non-heterosexual people. In this regard we cite a study of married same-sex couples in the US and the Netherlands which found these couples had “increased their commitment and their sense of responsibility, had generally strengthened their relationships, believed their children were better off after their marriage, chiefly through legal protection for those children and enhanced feelings of security, stability and acceptance in the children, and felt participation and acceptance in their extended families and communities had increased because of their marriage”. The conclusion was that “overall, the experiences of same-sex couples in two countries, the United States and the Netherlands, suggests that same-sex couples and their families are strengthened by a policy of marriage equality for same-sex couples.”
Your third concern is that “we already have ‘relationship equality’ in Australia, because marriage, homosexual relationships, and unmarried heterosexual relationships are all treated equally before the law”. While it is true that most spousal entitlements flow equally to married and unmarried partners, marriage provides the easiest, safest and most universally-respected way to access and guarantee these entitlements. Further, marriage connotes and/or creates commitment, kinship, interdependence and inclusion, in a way other forms of relationship recognition do not. In regard to the unique qualities of marriage, we refer you to a recent article by Chris Berg from the Institute of Public Affairs, in which he states, “extending the marital franchise to gay and lesbian couples would multiply the number of Australians who can join this crucial social institution, spreading the positive impact of marriage on society”.
Advocacy against marriage equality
On the subsidiary point of advocacy against marriage equality by Church representatives, we make the following three points.
All Australians have the right to express their political and religious views. However, sometimes the professional role one takes on can and should constrain how and when one speaks out. Our concern about Catholic clergy strongly opposing marriage equality is that priests and bishops also have a pastoral role, which includes pastoral care for non-heterosexual parishioners and their families. The National Youth Mental Health Foundation, Headspace, recently issued a statement which says “marriage equality is primarily about ending social exclusion and giving all Australians the same basic rights. Headspace knows this lack of equality has strong links to mental health issues among same sex attracted young people. We want to see an end to the unnecessary stigma and isolation another generation of young Australians could face because of this inequality”. Given this, we believe it is almost impossible for a member of the clergy to advocate against marriage equality while providing the pastoral care his or her non-heterosexual parishioners have every right to expect.
Our second point in regard to advocacy is that if you do not agree there is a conflict between advocacy and pastoral care, and given your support for freedom of religious conscience, will you at least allow Catholic clergy who support marriage equality to speak out in its favour? We are unsure about the extent of your involvement in the current Church campaign against marriage equality, as well as your general role in overseeing clerical behaviour. But given your authority in the Church, a statement from you allowing a plurality of views to be expressed would carry great weight.
Thirdly in regard to advocacy, we agree not all opposition to marriage equality is motivated by, or connotes, prejudice and hate. Although we concur with Headspace about the negative impacts of marriage discrimination, we acknowledge that it is quite possible to oppose marriage equality without feeling ill-will towards same-sex attracted people. The obvious parallel is that it is quite possible to support marriage equality without seeking to undermine marriage, family or religion. We have often made this clear and, in answer to Your Eminence, we are quite happy to state it again publicly.
A meeting
This brings us to the final point of a meeting. Despite our differences on this issue, we believe it would still be useful to meet. Clearly, this is a complex and multi-faceted matter, and both parties would benefit from a deeper understanding of the other’s position. We would be happy for Your Eminence to be accompanied by a Catholic married couple. If Your Eminence agrees to a meeting, we would be happy to negotiate the parameters of that meeting to ensure all relevant parties attend and are free to fully contribute. Consistent with the public nature of our correspondence so far, we will post this letter on our website after we have sent it to you.
Yours Sincerely,
Peter Furness, Acting National Convenor, AUSTRALIAN MARRIAGE EQUALITY
***
22 December 2010
From: His Eminence, Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney
To: Peter Furness, Acting Convenor, Australian Marriage Equality
Dear Mr Furness,
Thank you for your email requesting a meeting with me to discuss proposals to amend the Marriage Act to permit same-sex marriage.
You raise a number of important questions in your letter and to avoid misunderstanding it is important to clarify where we stand on these matters.
1. In your letter you express concern about “undue involvement by the clergy in a debate about the reform of the civil law”. It is of course quite inappropriate for priests or bishops to serve as legislators or as decision makers in government. But in Australia priests and bishops enjoy the same rights to freedom of speech and to participate in public debate as everyone else. This applies particularly to important questions of justice, and to issues which threaten to further erode the family, with all the suffering this brings for individuals and the community.
Involvement in public debate is first and foremost the work of lay people. The Federal Parliament has resolved that MPs should consult with their constituents about same-sex marriage, and as constituents Catholics have the same right as other Australians to express their views to their MPs. All this helps explains the involvement of the Catholic Women’s League and the Knights of the Southern Cross.
It is entirely appropriate for priests to support and encourage the people in their parishes to take part in this consultation about the meaning of marriage. In doing so, they are continuing a proud tradition of working with lay people and members of religious orders to defend important values and the rights of others – in this case, the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, which has been significantly eroded and constrained wherever same-sex marriage has been legalised.
I can assure you that I have no intention of impeding any priest who wants to work with their people in actively campaigning against same-sex marriage in Australia.
2. You also suggest that encouraging people to take part in this consultation by informing them about the issues involved and the reasons why marriage can only mean a union of one man and one woman “will unnecessarily inflame discrimination and prejudice” against non-heterosexual people in the Church and particularly those who are young. The Catholic Church is committed to defending the rights of every person, including people who are non-heterosexual, and this is a responsibility to which I am deeply committed, both as a bishop and personally. The suffering and hardship that prejudice and unjust discrimination cause for non-heterosexual people is a matter of serious pastoral concern to me and to most Catholics. We support appropriate measures to address these issues and offer non-heterosexual people our support, compassion and respect, free from personal judgements.
In short, we have no intention of doing anything to encourage prejudice or unjust discrimination against non-heterosexual people. If you have had the opportunity to examine the materials that have been circulated to parishes in the Archdiocese of Sydney you will see that they have been carefully prepared to focus on the fundamental question of marriage and what it is, and to avoid any language that is even remotely inflammatory. I believe most Catholics will receive these materials in the spirit in which they have been prepared and enter into the substance of the debate, which is about the meaning of marriage, without encouraging prejudice or unjust discrimination.
It is also important to register strongly that it is not an act of prejudice or discrimination to oppose same-sex marriage. Your letter seems to imply that it is. I would be grateful for your express assurance that this is not your view or the view of the organisation you represent. In most Western countries, values, opinions or ideas which are held to cause prejudice or discrimination are usually outlawed or penalised under anti-discrimination and human rights legislation. It is precisely the false claim that opposition to same-sex marriage in itself is a form of prejudice or discrimination which has been so damaging in undermining freedom of thought, conscience and religion in those jurisdictions overseas where same-sex marriage has been legalised.
On 17 December 2010, the Washington Post carried an opinion piece summarising the way this has unfolded in the US. It makes for disturbing reading. It seems to me that the only way to avoid a similar situation here in Australia is for organisations such as your own to disavow publicly the claim that opposition to same-sex marriage is a form of prejudice and discrimination, and to acknowledge publicly that this opposition is usually based on reasonable grounds, even if they are not grounds which you would accept.
3. I appreciate the intention behind your assurances that it is not intended to compel “any clergy” to celebrate same-sex marriages under the amendments that are being proposed to the Marriage Act. For the reasons I have set out in the preceding paragraphs I hope you will understand why, with respect, I take these assurances with a grain of salt. I hope that the Australian people will choose to preserve marriage as it is and as it has always been understood and to decline any amendments to the Marriage Act which would permit same-sex marriage, and I will certainly be doing everything I can to encourage this. But in the event that matters take a different course, the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion remains as a universal human right. It is not in your gift or that of the parliament to offer us this right or take it away, irrespective of what any particular legislation may or may not say. Any attempt by the parliament to undermine or abridge freedom of thought or conscience or religion, on this or any other issue, will be strenuously and actively opposed by the Catholic community.
4. Allow me to state briefly our position on this question. The issue of same-sex marriage is not about the rights of non-heterosexual people or about equality. We already have “relationship equality” in Australia, because marriage, homosexual relationships, and unmarried heterosexual relationships are all treated equally before the law. As a way of ensuring that everyone is treated fairly, I support this, although I also think more needs to be done to support marriage as a relationship which is particularly important for the well-being of families and the community.
The key point on which we differ is not how we define marriage, but about its nature. Is marriage just a word, the meaning of which can be changed by the courts or the parliament? Or does it have a unique reality which cannot be changed, regardless of how we might change the language we use for it? The reality of marriage is that it is about a man, a woman and children. This is how marriage has always been understood across time and cultures, and it is how Australians continue to understand marriage, as shown by the fact that most Australian couples decide to marry when they decide to have children.
There are other relationships, and I acknowledge that love and genuine companionship are often part of them, but they have a different nature from marriage. Nothing is gained and many significant things are lost by pretending these differences do not exist, or by trying to erase them by calling them by the same name. For the Catholic Church, the issue of same-sex marriage is not primarily about homosexuality or discrimination, but about the nature of marriage, and the good things it makes possible because of its nature, for spouses, for families and for the community.
I am grateful for your request for a meeting to discuss these matters and am open to considering such a meeting. As I have explained, I can offer you no assistance on the second reason you have asked for this meeting (to prevent Catholic clergy from actively campaigning against same-sex marriage), and on most of the substantive matters I expect we will have to agree to disagree. But it is always good to talk whenever this might be helpful.
It would help me in considering your request for a meeting to receive an assurance that you and the AME do not regard opposition to same-sex marriage in itself as a form of prejudice and discrimination, and that you are prepared to say this publicly. I understand if you are not able to give this assurance, but I hope you will understand in turn that there does not seem to be much point talking if this is the case.
I note too your request to bring a same-sex couple who have been civilly married in another jurisdiction to such a meeting. I am not sure how helpful this would be, but I am willing to consider it on the basis that I could bring a Catholic married couple to the meeting as well, so that they can explain their concerns about same-sex marriage and what it might mean for the sort of commitment they have made.
Finally, I note that your letter to me was posted on your website soon after it was sent. Following the precedent you have set, we will be posting this correspondence on the website of the Archdiocese of Sydney.
Thank you again for your letter and for the courteous way in which you have raised this issue with me. Please accept my very best wishes for Christmas.
Yours sincerely,
XGeorge Cardinal Pell, ARCHBISHOP OF SYDNEY
***
20 December 2010
From: Peter Furness, Acting National Convener, Australian Marriage Equality
To: His Eminence, Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney
Your Eminence,
On behalf of the committee and members of Australian Marriage Equality, I request a meeting with you to discuss the issue of allowing same-sex partners to marry under the Marriage Act 1961.
We are concerned by reports that some Catholic clergy are instructing their parishioners to lobby our national leaders against allowing same-sex civil marriages.
One of our concerns is that this appears to be undue involvement by the clergy in a debate about the reform of a civil law.
Another is that the reported action of some members of the clergy will unnecessarily inflame discrimination and prejudice against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, particularly young people and those in the Church.
We ask for a meeting in order to:
1. Assure you that the Marriage Act amendments we seek will not force any clergy to marry partners against their convictions. This means that Catholic clergy will able to refuse to marry same-sex partners in the same way they may currently refuse to marry divorced partners, and
2. In the light of the above undertaking, seek an assurance that, in their clerical capacity, Catholic clergy will not actively campaign against civil marriage for same-sex partners.
In short, just as we respect your right to not marry same-sex partners in religious ceremonies, we ask that you respect our right to marry under civil law. This seems appropriate in a tolerant, modern democracy such as ours.
If your Eminence agrees to a meeting with us, we ask that we may bring a same-sex couple married under the civil law of another country to explain how allowing same-sex civil marriages has not interfered with the right of churches to define religious marriages.
We understand that some of the clergy who are using their clerical role to advocate against reform may not be under your direct authority as Archbishop of Sydney, but we write to you, nonetheless, because of the authority your role as Cardinal gives you in the Australian Catholic Church.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Furness, Acting National Convenor, AUSTRALIAN MARRIAGE EQUALITY