Dear Eric,

A question for you:

Once the state's definition of "marriage" is changed (now only a matter of time, it seems), do you support (why or why not) the right of those who are legally-married by the current definition, to have their marriage de-registered (without needing to live physically apart for a year)?

Recent Pew Forum research indicates that 70 per cent of the world's population live under regimes that impose the heaviest restrictions on religious freedom (http://www.pewforum.org/2009/12/17/global-restrictions-on-religion/). Through whatever historical contingencies that may have contributed to this statistical picture, we are fortunate enough to benefit from citizenship in the remaining 30 per cent.

From the point of view of this global relativity, it may seem surprising that there is sufficient concern about freedom of religion in Australia for the Australian Human Rights Commission to have initiated the recent roundtable. But this concern is not limited to Australia. It is exploited for political mileage in the US GOP primaries, and has featured in some landmark cases brought before the European Human Rights Commission.

Changing demographics of religious observance must have a good deal to do with the concern of religious institutions, with 23 percent opting for 'no religion' in the Australian 2011 Census, similar statistics for 'nones' in the US, and even higher numbers of non-religious the UK. In terms of market share, if I were a religious institution I would be worried, too.

One of the most salient questions, in my view, is that of differentiating as clearly as possible between genuine threats to freedom, which should be remedied, and threats to traditional privilege which do not merit a heavy investment of time and energy.

A very well written and argued article. I agreed on all points raised.
There is nothing 'free' about religion, other than our right to free ourselves of the shackles of religion.

Yuyutsu, can I ask under what circumstances can you see married couples choosing to get divorced because gay marriage has become legal?

The only one I can think of is those sham marriages where one spouse is actually gay, but chooses to live with someone of the opposite sex for some reason. Once the gay spouse sees that he or she can actually marry someone of the same sex, then maybe they will want out of the marriage wherein they have been living a lie?

Dear Suse,

I was referring to this article:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-11/christian-couple-vow-to-get-divorced-in-face-of-gay-marriage/6539412

And I wouldn't call it a divorce - perhaps annulment: when you are in a relationship with a financial institution, there is always a clause in the small print, explaining that the institute may change the terms of the contract by giving you a notice of xx days and if you are unhappy with the change, then you can choose to settle and terminate the relationship before the change comes into effect.

If you purchase a pot, take it home, but then when you open the wrappings you discover that unlike the picture on the cover, it's a kettle, then surely you can return it to the store and get your money back?

Eric G,

There is no “ban on marriage equality”. If everyone wants to make his or her marriage equal to everyone else’s, he or she may, but achieving such a thing in practice would be impossible.

Nor is there a ban on “same-sex marriage” (which is what some people refer to as “marriage equality” as part of the propaganda campaign), just as there is no ban on square circles or carnivorous vegetarianism or fire-breathing dragons. The fact that something does not exist does not mean it is banned.

You already “have the same freedom as everyone else to form a socially recognised relationship”. The fact that this relationship is not a marriage is neither here nor there. There are all sorts of relationships in society – mother-daughter, father-son, uncle-niece, grandmother-grandson, cousin-cousin, friend-friend, employer-employee. They don’t have to all to be called marriages to make them mean something.

Marriage is a civil institution. Religious blessing is an addition to that.

The civil institution is about merging as property owners, having rights of access to one another and duty of care to each other, having a legally sanctioned guardianship of children that are biological progeny, adopted or fostered.

Religion adds controls about sexual identity and prohibitions on sex outside of marriage and so on.

So there is general marriage and marriage within a religious context. Freedom requires all people to have access to general marriage and to be able to choose religious context when appropriate.