Religious Marriage Celebrants, contrary to the Oz Constitution

Marriage Act 1961 S26,27 etc contrary to S116 Constitution

I sent the following email to the Attorney General's Department:

Hi,
I'm contemplating marriage.
I read, with concern the S26 and 27 of the Marriage Act 1961 as requiring a religious test as a qualification for an office or public trust under the Commonwealth.  This is contrary to S116 of the Australian Constitution.
I am concerned that, were I to opt to have my marriage conducted by a person so qualified, my marriage would not be solemnised, by virtue of their putative qualification flying in the face of the explicit prohibition against religious tests in the Constitution.
Could you please advise on whence the putative power of the Commonwealth to appoint people to office and public trust contrary to the Constitution arises.
Colin

You can see, I used the word 'putative' twice, so I'm serious!  (putatively)

For context, the local Tory party is vocally against same sex marriage.  Now, it doesn't personally affect me, because I happen not to swing that way, but it irks me that the basic premises for forbidding such arrangements are religious.

I really detest religious interference in public and private life.  I hate that with a vengeance.

It seems to me, on its face, that the Australian Constitution explicitly forbids religious institutions from even conducting marriages under the Marriage Act 1961.  So, it seems to me, that if the religious want to use the law to interfere with the rights and pleasures of others, then they ought really to suffer the same kinds of prohibitions.

I think it's very likely that every marriage conducted under the Marriage Act 1961 by a religious celebrant is actually not solemnised (for all the difference that makes.)

-- Colin.
Saucing the Goose, since 1961.