Dear Julian,

Clerics can perform weddings without being marriage-celebrants on behalf of the state or in fact, without having any other obligations to the state.

And this is what I hope they will do in future.

@Yuyutsu and Shadow Minister

Lawful marriage of a couple involves the state in that it confers on the couple the rights and obligations legislated by the state.

It is up to the state who it empowers to do this.

A person empowered to conduct a marriage is currently allowed to disqualify a couple on general grounds dictated by the celebrant's religious cult. The Roman Catholic cult, for example, excludes marriage of a divorced person. If the pollies are going to debate freedom of religion they should strip this privilege from religious cults and oblige celebrants to conduct any lawful marriage or lose their licence to conduct marriages recognised by the state. As required by Section 116 of the Constitution if a government has the guts to apply it.

SSM legislation extends to same sex couples the same criteria as apply to other couples.

The best reference I could find for the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion, which embraces the much more important freedom FROM religion, is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_116_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia#Judicial_consideration

Dear Julian,

«Lawful marriage of a couple involves the state in that it confers on the couple the rights and obligations legislated by the state.»

It is not unlawful to marry without involving the state.

If the state is not informed of the marriage, then of course it wouldn't register it and wouldn't "confer" any rights or obligations on the couple - but who wants these anyway?!

So it is my hope that churches and other religious organisations, from now on will no longer involve the state. As far as the state is concerned, much fewer people will be considered to be married - and that's a great outcome.