Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner Robin Banks said these potential changes could lead to further acts of prejudice against same-sex couples. 

A Senate committee met in Melbourne on Monday to discuss potential changes to the Marriage Act, which state that a marriage celebrant is exempt from having to marry a same-sex couple based on conscientious or religious beliefs.

It also states religious bodies and organisations can refuse to make facilities available to gay couples. 

Same-sex couples are the only group of people in the community these acts of refusal would apply to directly. 

Religious ministers would also have the right to refuse to marry same-sex couples on the grounds of their religious beliefs. 

Ms Banks said overall she supported the change in definition of marriage, which is altered from a man and a woman to two people, and the protection of religious celebrants in relation to their religious beliefs. 

“We have concerns about the protection beyond what is in the scope of religion, both for religious celebrants and civil celebrants,” Ms Banks said. 

“The idea of an objection just on the grounds of sexual orientation of those seeking to marry, where there’s no broader conscientious objection permitted, would seem to be a particularly discriminatory position.”

Ms Banks said during the debate over same-sex marriage laws, everyone should think about how their behaviours impacted others. 

According to a survey undertaken by Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, 90 per cent of the more than 6000 LGBTIQ Australians who took part said they opposed the changes. 

In a submission, the Australian Federation of Civil Celebrants said achieving marriage equality was strongly supported by a majority of its members. 

The group also said the exemption for civil celebrants was supported by many, but this was not unanimous. 

The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference said that marriage was between a man and a woman. 

“The recognition that marriage is between a man and a woman is not the assertion of bigotry, religious dogma or irrational tradition, but a recognition of human ecology,” the group said in its submission.

“Redefining marriage would deliberately create motherless or fatherless families, which would deprive children of at least one of their biological parents, and would put the references or interests of adults before the right and interests of children.”