State­ment by Anton Block, Pres­i­dent of the Exec­u­tive Coun­cil of Aus­tralian Jew­ry
The Pres­i­dent of the Exec­u­tive Coun­cil of Aus­tralian Jew­ry, Anton Block, has reject­ed as “alarmist” sug­ges­tions that an amend­ment to the def­i­n­i­tion of mar­riage in Aus­tralian civ­il law will in some way open the door to a future infringe­ment of the reli­gious free­doms of those who believe in the tra­di­tion­al def­i­n­i­tion of mar­riage.  He was com­ment­ing on a con­tro­ver­sial state­ment issued by the Rab­bini­cal Coun­cil of Vic­to­ria (RCV) urg­ing Aus­tralians to vote “No” to pro­posed reforms to Australia’s mar­riage laws that would recog­nise same sex mar­riages.
“The RCV state­ment was issued with­out prop­er thought or under­stand­ing of the way Australia’s Con­sti­tu­tion and legal sys­tem work”, Mr Block said.  “There is no basis for believ­ing that a change to the civ­il law def­i­n­i­tion of mar­riage would be a poten­tial threat to the rights and free­doms of reli­gious insti­tu­tions and lead­ers to con­duct reli­gious mar­riages or to affirm reli­gious teach­ings about mar­riage.  Reli­gious mar­riages are out­side the scope of the Mar­riage Act, which relates only to civ­il mar­riages.   It is alarmist to sug­gest oth­er­wise, and wrong for the RCV to use its author­i­ty in reli­gious mat­ters in this way.”
Mr Block added: “All peo­ple are enti­tled to have their dig­ni­ty respect­ed, regard­less of their eth­nic­i­ty, reli­gious affil­i­a­tions and beliefs, sex­u­al ori­en­ta­tion, gen­der, or any dis­abil­i­ty.”
The Pres­i­dent of the RCV and at least six oth­er rab­bis who are mem­bers of the RCV have since dis­so­ci­at­ed them­selves from the RCV state­ment.