Civil celebrants are throwing their support behind same-sex marriage, arguing the law as it stands is discriminatory.
West Footscray celebrant Mary Napier said marriage celebrants must abide by a code of practice which require them to avoid discrimination when providing marriage celebrancy services.
She said couples from different cultural backgrounds or religions were allowed to be married in civil ceremonies, yet the Marriage Act as it stands discriminates against same-sex couples.
“I think that all people should have the opportunity to marry. People shouldn’t fear this; the change to the marriage act is not going to affect anyone except for those who are getting married,” she said.
Fellow celebrant Benny Roff said the tide of change in favour of marriage equality around the world, backed up by countless polls in Australia in support of a change, means same-sex marriage was inevitable.
“It certainly grates on me that I’m required to be non-discriminatory, yet this is now illegal despite being a basic human right,” he said.
Civil marriages have outnumbered religious ceremonies since 1999, and three in four marriages in Australia are now performed by civil celebrants.
Ms Napier many couples who she is marrying are requesting a change to the words “the union of a man and a woman”, yet she has to explain celebrants are legally bound to say those words.
“Couples are therefore requesting that we make some form of statement of support for the LGBTIQ community,” she said.
Mr Roff said he has noticed a similar sentiment growing across the wider community.
“I expected it from inner-city types, but people from the country, from the outer suburbs, people I wouldn’t expect to be getting behind it are. It’s pretty broad support amongst everyone.”
Inner-west residents are starting to receive postal surveys from the Australian Bureau of Statistics in the federal government’s $122 million non-binding postal survey on same sex marriage.
Ms Napier said the survey is an expense, unnecessary and unfortunate undertaking.
“It seems to be very much a delaying tactic; we haven’t applied this process for a number of other amendments to the marriage act in years gone by,” she said.
“Why is this any different and why are we seeking opinions from this minority of people who do not have the authority to pass judgement and impose their beliefs on another?”
