22 Oct 2013

Marriage Equality At Last In The ACT

By Rodney Croome
Deputy Chief Minister Andrew Barr
Deputy Chief Minister Andrew Barr

Same-sex marriage laws passed the ACT Parliament today, after last-minute modifications based on expert legal advice to protect against a High Court challenge, writes Rodney Croome

Australia’s leading constitutional barrister, Bret Walker SC, has cleared the way for states to legislate for same-sex marriage in a landmark legal opinion released on Friday which says the Tasmanian Same-Sex Marriage Bill is constitutionally valid.

But there was a sting in the tail of the Walker advice for the ACT because its same-sex marriage legislation, which passed today, was originally framed differently from Tasmania’s and, in Walker’s eyes, was doomed to fail any High Court challenge.

The advice — solicited by the Human Rights Law Centre acting on behalf of Australian Marriage Equality and co-authored by two other prominent constitutional barristers, Chris Young and Perry Herzfeld — is a game-changer in the debate on state same-sex marriage laws.

Walker is widely respected; his opinion is significant because concerns about the constitutionality of state same-sex marriage laws have been one of the main obstacles to passing them.

For example, the Tasmanian Same-Sex Marriage Bill was defeated by two votes last year and several of those who voted against on constitutional grounds have previously lauded Walker.

Upper House members who are key to passing the Same-Sex Marriage Bill have praised Walker as “Australia's acknowledged leading constitutional lawyer”, “the country's top constitutional law expert”, and “one of the very best in Australia”.

Clearly, if anything can assuage the concerns of sceptical MPs in Tasmania, NSW and elsewhere, and convince them to vote for a state bill, it is the Walker advice.

We will know soon enough, with a motion to re-introduce the Tasmanian Bill due to be debated in less than two weeks and debate on the NSW Bill due in that state’s Upper House not long after.

The Walker advice isn’t the first foray into this area. Australia’s leading constitutional academic, George Williams, was the first to raise the idea that states can legitimately pass laws for same-sex marriages.

In recent months two reports addressed the constitutionality of state same-sex marriage laws – one from the NSW Parliament and one from the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute.

Both argued convincingly that the states have the power to enact laws for same-sex marriages and that the case for the constitutional validity in the High Court would be a strong one.

Where the Walker advice differs from previous contributions to the state marriage debate is its analysis of the specific way state statutes are framed.

According to Walker and his co-authors the Tasmanian Same-Sex Marriage Bill is constitutionally valid because it has been carefully framed to avoid any conflict with the Federal Marriage Act.

Rather than seeking to allow same-sex couples to marry, it allows couples to enter same-sex marriages.

That may seem like hair splitting, but it matters because in Walker’s view the Commonwealth Marriage Act has conclusively defined who can and who can’t enter the legal institution called “marriage”.

But it has not defined who can enter the legal institution called “same-sex marriage”. In this field the states are free to do what they wish.

Of course, there will be some people who object to the idea of same-sex marriage being a legal status distinct from marriage.

But as Walker explains, the distinction is no greater than the distinction between, say, marriage and de facto marriage. Federal marriages and state same-sex marriages retain the same attributes.

State same-sex marriage laws allow same-sex couples to enter into fully fledged, legally binding, exclusive and life-long unions with the name “marriage”.

In this respect it’s worth noting, as the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute did in its report, that marriage equality in the UK was achieved through a separate law about same-sex marriage rather than the amendment of an existing marriage statute.

Lawyers may argue about definitions but I believe most couples ultimately don’t care how the law they marry under is framed. What they care about is that they can marry, and that their marriage will still be valid in a year’s time, which the Tasmanian and NSW Bills promise they will be.

This was not a promise the ACT Bill initially made. The law first proposed by the ACT Government did exactly what Walker says it couldn’t do — it trespassed on the federal government’s territory by expanding the existing legal status of “marriage” to include same-sex couples.

Williams and others also expressed concern about this constitutional problem. The ACT Government had the best motives. Like all marriage equality supporters it wants there to be no legal distinction between the marriages of gay and straight couples.

But according to the experts, this is simply not possible if the states and territories are to move the issue forward in the face of an unfriendly federal government.

The ACT moved to strengthen its Bill, responding to expert advice by announcing that it will make its Bill more like bills in Tasmania and NSW.

Another problem with the original ACT Bill was the way it opened marriage, not just to same-sex couples, but to anyone who can’t currently marry. This is a hat-tip to transgender and intersex people who don’t identify as male or female and don’t want to marry under a gender specific statute.

Again, I understand the intention. But the outcome may have been a potential constitutional conflict when a couple marries under the territory law who are legally male and female in federal law regardless of how they might identify in their own hearts. Unfortunately, no state legislation can change the way the federal government recognises gender.

Besides, contrary to some reports, no-one actually misses out on the chance to marry under the Tasmanian model, or under the new ACT model.

In these jurisdictions, all transgender and intersex people are legally male or female, meaning in practise those who can’t marry under the federal Marriage Act will be able to marry under a state or territory law specific to same-sex couples.

The interest most of my transgender friends have in this debate is to legally marry, not to legally redefine gender, and a state same-sex marriage statute is currently the best chance they have of achieving their goal.

When same-sex couples begin to marry soon in the ACT it will be a joyous day for supporters of equality across the nation. It will change the debate forever when same-sex couples begin to wed without the sky falling in.

What will make it even better is knowing these couples’ solemn vows of lifelong commitment have the best possible chance of withstanding a challenge to their validity in the High Court.

Log in or register to post comments

Discuss this article

To control your subscriptions to discussions you participate in go to your Account Settings preferences and click the Subscriptions tab.

Enter your comments here

This user is a New Matilda supporter. bobbeeart
Posted Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - 13:42

Maybe we wiil get an influx of Russian boat people arriving in the ACT soon??

Barrie
Posted Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - 14:43

"Of course, there will be some people who object to the idea of same-sex marriage being a legal status distinct from marriage."

Some people? It's the lobby group you head Mr Croome that has insisted 'separate is not equal'. If a federal law that excludes same-sex couples is discriminatory then a state/territory law that excludes opposite-sex couples must be equally discriminatory. Yet the advocates of equality think they have made a victory? Unbelievable!

tuckeroo
Posted Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - 15:28

"This is a hat-tip to transgender and intersex people who don’t identify as male or female and don’t want to marry under a gender specific statute."
Rodney needs to understand that Intersex has nothing whatever to do with Gender - it is anatomy and physiology. My Intersex friends are angry and alienated by this confusion. It's not rocket-science to get the point - they are born physiologically neither male nor female. Drop the gender discourse and recognise them for what and whom they are.

hojuruku
Posted Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - 17:36

<p>The Australian Human Rights legal centre (aka @rightsagenda) on twitter doesn&#39;t need to be solicted by the gay lobby to be pushing the homosexual agenda. Just look at their twitter feed. They are no different to @iclc (inner city legal centre) that brags about having justice kerby over for a fancy luncheon birthyday party paid for the interest on everyone&#39;s in the CBD&#39;s rental bond deposits! @rightsagenda doesn&#39;t care if GLLO gay police are exempt from anti-discrimination law so they can&quot;lawfully discriminate&quot;.Then if you are unhappy about being a victim of a hate crime (a crime motivated by discrimination) pepetrated by these GLLO special gay police these pink triangle brigade (see their badges) idiots can accuse you of 60c nsw crimes act! Gays exempt from the NSW AntiDiscrimination Act can legally open homosexual only preschools or sue church camps for not having underage child gay sex ed on their land (google &quot;wayout vs bretheren&quot; and see the ABC stateline victoria footage at http://youtube.com/hojuruku )&nbsp;</p>

hojuruku
Posted Tuesday, October 22, 2013 - 17:58

http://www.antidiscrimination.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/adb/adb1_antidiscrimina... "This is because it is not against the law to discriminate against people who are not homosexual – it is only against the law to discriminate against people who are homosexual. " NSW Anti-discrimination board website. If we said "it's not against the law to discriminate against people who are not white....." that would be South African Apartied run by white bigots. Why can't we call the gay lobby biggots if they don't want to for equlaity. I'm not Fred Niles or a liberal troll if you saw my youtube channel what I stand for I've had stoushes with both of them. Fred voted for 60C NSW Crimes Act, and regular readers he would know Lee Rhiannon from the Greens said only corrupt police would use that law at it's inception. Only gay police did as it turned out (Google it!) Ironically these people who proposed to make the law EQUAL were called bigots when Fred made a private members bill back in 2002. I hate bigots!

junsz
Posted Wednesday, October 23, 2013 - 00:16

Hello, i am glad to read the whole content of this blog and am very excited and happy to say that the webmaster has done a very good job here to put all the information content and information at one place
jasa seo jakarta
jasa seo
jasa seo murah

herryon
Posted Monday, November 25, 2013 - 00:59

Burberry best replica Handbags is a actual acclaimed cast from England, which is name with the name of the architect Thomas Burberry. Its architect invented gaberdinein 1879. Gaberdine is a breathable bolt fabricated application pre-waterproofed yarn. Gaberdine bolt is both baptize aggressive and acutely abiding and was ideal for the accomplishment of alfresco abrasion for amateur and soldiers who were Burberry's prime audience in the backward 1800's and aboriginal 1900's. In the 1920's, Burberry alien its signature arrested fabric: an instantly apparent cast to this day.

dengdai
Posted Monday, November 25, 2013 - 13:18

opinion experts should moncler certainly target precisely what VERY temps ugg pas cher the particular oocysts depart this life particularly. Plus everything that VERY ugg soldes temps the actual Toxoplasma Gondii drops dead inside it personal in concert being (Discluding any time inside of ugg pas cher it is really cyst). Together with just what exactly ACTUAL environment that latent Cysts and Lancel Pas Cher also tachyzoite's die-off. Avoid, Nichelle Nichols moncler is crucial. air max Uhura stirred me personally being partner (a white colored lady, however hey). The girl is ugg scarpe tough, certified not to mention versitile. An extraordinary Tony Doudoune Canada Goose adamowicz appeared to be worth to make sure you nike air max Minnelli with regard to splitting the particular boxoffice moncler log around the louboutin Winter weather Gardening Cinema moncler through 1973 on her behalf onewoman Doudoune Canada Goose present. Inside 1977, Lancel Pas Cher your woman go back towards the Broadway cycle longchamp pas cher within the starring factor on the Kander and additionally Ebb music The actual React, which is why this girl appeared to be honored the woman's 1 / 3 Tony a2z. canada goose Typically the play was basically aimed