Search
This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian News

Delay update ... "Extraordinary and excessive" delay - by the litigants ... Contest on costs ... Getting to grips with Qld industrial law takes time ... What is a "worker"? ... What is an "injury"? ... Justice Jenni frigging around ... Slow grind for earnest Circuiteer ... From judges' associate Ginger Snatch ... Read more >>

 

Politics Media Law Society


The End Of The Affair ... Lord Moloch’s bid for more Fox News fans … The Wall Street Journal rallies the MAGA base …Will the old rogue abandon his journalists? … Is “bawdy” the right word here? … The Deep State plumbs the depths … John and Stanley Roth’s generosity to loving causes ... Read on >> 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

From the cutting room floor...Handsy Heydon goes to Perth ... Celebrity tour ... Conferenceville ... Dicey's job application speech from 2002 ... Other High Court judges mocked as "vegetables" ... Mason CJ ridiculed ... Speech bowdlerised for public consumption ... Courage of conviction MIA ... From our National Affairs Correspondent ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


 

 

Justinian's Bloggers

London Calling ... Sizzling in the Old Dart ... Story of the complaining law graduate ... Tattle Life brought to book ... Beckham family feud over royal gong ... Floyd Alexander-Hunt's postcard ... Read more >> 

"What you are not being told by the media anywhere is that the death toll likely would not have been as high if it wasn't for DEI."

Charlie Kirk, American conservative and conspiracy theorist on the Texas floods ... The Charlie Kirk Show, July 9, 2025  Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

Tootsies with Planet Janet ... Water Softener and the Planet ... Further details of the width and depth of their relationship ... Chief Justice of the ACT grants Justinian's application for access to more documents ... A barrage of text messages and phone calls throughout the Drumgold investigation ... Collated reporting ... Read more >> 


Justinian's archive

Being chased by a dog called Rhetoric ... Justice Virginia Bell on rhetorical devices and barristering ... It seems to be a male thing ... Distractions from the truth ... Tulkinghorn asks, where would the bar be without bad rhetoric? ... September 14, 2012 ... Read more >> 


 

 

« Unearthing the Delilah Syndrome | Main | Ghostly confusion over authorship »
Monday
Jul292013

Sex, married bliss and the Constitution 

Gay weddings and the state ... Is the law leaving Abbott behind? ... A flurry of opinionistas on whether the John Howard version of marriage is the end of the matter ... Whether State law would be inconsistent with the Commonwealth's ... Constitutional hanky-panky

THE same-sex marriage campaign last week got a virile booster shot from a NSW Legislative Council committee. 

After wide consultation with boffins of the utmost fame, the Social Issues Committee has floated the idea that state legislation giving same-sex couples the right to marry just might not be the constitutional no-no everyone has assumed. 
 
The thinking goes like this: 

  • Marriage is a concurrent power of both the Commonwealth and the States; 
  • Therefore the Commonwealth's power is not exclusive; 
  • Residual matters are the province of the States; 
  • Does the Commonwealth Marriage Act cover the field? With different sex marriage it does, but not necessarily with same-sex marriage; 
  • Much depends on the meaning of the word "marriage" in the Constitution, because even though the Commonwealth Act says it only means the joining of a man and a woman, the High Court might have a wider  view; 
  • The legal meaning of "marriage" has changed over time - for example, the availability of no-fault divorce and the abolition of marriage as a defence to rape. 

If the High Court finds the Constitution confines marriage to opposite sex plighting of troth, then the States would have a residual power. If the court finds the word has a broader meaning so as to cover same-sex marriages, then the Commonwealth could pass legislation to cover the field and there would be no need for State laws.  

Prof (Gorgeous) George Williams thinks that there would not necessarily be an inconsistency between Commonwealth and State laws: 

"My view is that there is no inconsistency between the federal Marriage Act and a carefully-drafted State same-sex marriage law. There is certainly room for debate about this issue. It is a myth, however, to suggest that a State law must be inconsistent. Rather, there is no answer to this question until the High Court provides one." 

Others disagree. 

Prof. Patrick Parkinson says that while the Marriage Act is not a complete statement of the law of marriage ...

"it is very likely that the High Court would hold that the Marriage Act 1961 covers the field of marriage". 

He thought it likely that NSW might follow the Tasmanian and South Australian path and create a hybrid marriage status, something that is different from "marriage" so as to avoid constitutional problems. 

Prof. Geoffrey Lindell and others reasoned that even if same-sex marriage does not fall within the definition of "marriage" as contained in the Constitution, the federal parliament could still cover the field with respect to marriage through its incidental legislative power. 

Prof Anne Twomey doesn't think that the Marriage Act can be read as leaving open the possibility of States legislating in this area. 

The NSW Bar Association said that it is possible to use the word "marriage" in State and Commonwealth legislation without giving rise to inconsistency. 

David Jackson QC in advice to the Department of AG and Justice said: 

"I think it clear that the Marriage Act seeks to determine what shall, and what shall not, be regarded as a valid 'marriage' in Australia. In that respect it 'covers the field' in the relevant areas. Only those unions which satisfy the requirements of the Marriage Act are valid marriages in Australia. Same-sex unions cannot satisfy that requirement." 

The upshot is that the committee found that NSW has the constitutional power to legislate on the subject of marriage. 

Within moments the ACT government announced it was on track to legislate for "marriage equality" - based on 2009 advice from Stephen Gageler. 
 
There is a lot of contention, but it seems that Premier Barry O'Packer wants to give Liberal MPs a free of conscience vote on the topic. 

The issue is whether there are enough crusty Catholic MPs under the thumb of Cardinal Pell to defeat a NSW gay marriage law. 

Legislative Council report 

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
Editor Permission Required
You must have editing permission for this entry in order to post comments.