Australian Commissioner- "International Law 'Requires' Marriage Equality."
It is clear to us that marriage equality, same-sex marriage, heterosexual marriage should be just marriage. How hard is that to figure out? How many people do we have to convince that love is love? Well in most nations, you will have to convince a majority of voters and / or representatives to make legal changes for that country to allow marriage to exist for all that love one another.
Why is it a majority? Why do we need to have 51% of the people agree that equal protection and equal rights should be "given" to all when in fact 51% should not have the power to give or deny anything to anyone. This is the argument coming out of Australia about marriage equality for all and it's gaining international support.
An international legal consensus is emerging that will demand marriage equality be extended beyond heterosexual couples, according to Australian human rights commissioner, Edward Santow.
In the speech, Santow cited article 26 of the international covenant on civil and political rights, that “all persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law”.
He said although some precedents suggested this did not protect marriage equality, those decisions were a “historical minority”.
“On the contrary: there’s a broad emerging consensus from respected and authoritative international bodies as well as courts in comparable jurisdictions to Australia, including the United States, that the principles of non-discrimination and equality before the law demand that civil marriage be extended beyond heterosexual couples.”
But Santow said that international human rights law provided only guidance on that point, not a clear-cut answer, and other rights, including freedom of religion, had to be considered.
Religious freedom was protected by the fact ministers of religion would not be required to solemnise a marriage, he said.
“The orthodox principle of human rights law is that human rights reform should not be a matter of majoritarianism. A better way to make sure our laws are human rights compatible is through the ordinary process of parliament.” He said the AHRC opposed the plebiscite, and had been clear for “several years” that a plebiscite is not the best way to achieve human rights reform. “But fundamentally we’re more interested in the substantive issue.”
In a panel at the forum, Santow praised the government’s marriage equality bill exposure draft which proposed changing the definition of marriage to a union between “two people”. - guardian.com/australia
It is a pretty simple argument. If humans have set up rights for humanity, why do we need a majority to allow those rights to be extended to other humans?
Santow, we hope your voice and argument gain steam and all hear it, not just a majority.