High Court decides the ACT’s same-sex marriage law is invalid

Parliament house flag post

High Court decides the ACT’s same-sex marriage law is invalid

Posted 12/12/2013 by Mary Anne Neilsen

Today, 12 December 2013, the High Court decided unanimously that the ACT’s Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013 cannot operate concurrently with the federal Marriage Act 1961. The Court held that the federal Parliament has power under the Australian Constitution to legislate with respect to same sex marriage, and that under the Constitution and federal law as it now stands, whether same sex marriage should be provided for by law is a matter for the federal Parliament.

Background
The right to marry is the one significant remaining difference between the legal treatment of same-sex and heterosexual relations in Australia. While there has been a shift in community and political opinion, the issue of same-sex marriage remains complex and controversial for some— raising human rights and constitutional law issues, as well as a raft of social, religious, moral and political questions. For a fuller account see the Parliamentary Library’s Briefing Book brief and Background Note on same sex marriage.

In terms of the Constitution, both the Commonwealth and the states can make laws regarding marriage, however should the state law be in inconsistent with the Commonwealth law ( the Marriage Act), the Commonwealth law would prevail and the state law would become inoperative to the extent of the inconsistency.  

At federal level, marriage equality reform has so far been unsuccessful. In the 43rd parliament several same-sex marriage bills were introduced but failed to be passed. In the current parliament, the fate of any potential legislation is unknown with Prime Minister Abbott indicating prior to election that he does not see the issue as a priority for a Coalition Government.

Introducing same-sex marriage at a state and territory level has therefore been seen as a fall-back position for marriage equality advocates with several states, including New South Wales, Tasmania and South Australia making various attempts to introduce same-sex marriage laws.

It was however the ACT that established Australia’s first same-sex marriage laws. One report suggests that around 30 same-sex marriages have been performed since 7 December, the date when, due to notice requirements, marriages could first occur.

On 25 October 2013, one day after passage of the Marriage Equality Act, the Commonwealth launched its constitutional challenge to the legislation. At the Commonwealth’s request, the High Court expedited the matter with hearings being held on 3 December and the Court reserving judgement until 12 December.

Before the Court
The case before the Court was argued not on human rights issues but on questions of federalism and the inconsistency of laws.

Professor Anne Twomey has critiqued the submissions of the parties. In summary she states:

The Commonwealth argued that it has the power to legislate in relation to all forms of marriage including same-sex marriages. The Commonwealth Marriage Act was intended to cover the entire field of marriage in Australia to the exclusion of any state or territory laws on the subject and that the ACT law is therefore invalid for trespassing into this field.

The ACT, on the other hand contended the Commonwealth’s Marriage Act deals only with the legal status of opposite-sex couples and that it does not prohibit or exclude laws conferring the status of marriage on others, including same-sex couples, or a status that is intended to equate to marriage.

The Decision
In summary, the Court held that ‘marriage’ in s51(xxi) of the Constitution includes a marriage between people of the same sex. The Marriage Act provides that a marriage can only take place between a man and a woman and that a union solemnised in a foreign country between a same sex couple must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia. This is ‘a comprehensive and exhaustive statement of the law of marriage’ in Australia. The ACT Act cannot operate concurrently with the Marriage Act, and is therefore of no effect.

Implications
What happens to those same-sex marriages performed in the ACT since 7 December? The effect of the High Court decision is that the Marriage Equality Act was an invalid law. Therefore, the marriages performed under this invalid law were also invalid— from a legal standpoint they were never marriages, just words spoken. However some would say that those ‘marriages’ were not in vain— that they had a social and psychological effect of making same-sex marriages more acceptable.

Where does the debate about same-sex marriage go from here? The High Court decision has clarified two key issues. Firstly by stating that the Commonwealth Marriage Act is comprehensive, the Court has ruled out the possibility of any state or territory same-sex marriage legislation. Secondly, the Court has defined the meaning of ‘marriage’ in the Constitution to include same sex marriage thereby giving the Commonwealth Parliament clear power to make laws with regard to same-sex marriage.

The likely effect is to bring a renewed focus on the prospects for change to marriage laws back into the federal arena.


Thank you for your comment. If it does not require moderation, it will appear shortly.
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Add | Email Print

FlagPost

Flagpost is a blog on current issues of interest to members of the Australian Parliament


Parliamentary Library Logo showing Information Analysis & Advice

Archive

Syndication

Tagcloud

immigration refugees elections taxation asylum Parliament criminal law election results Australian Bureau of Statistics social security disability citizenship Indigenous Australians political parties United Kingdom UK Parliament Census statistics banking early childhood education Middle East Australian foreign policy OECD Australian Electoral Commission voting mental health Employment military history by-election election timetable China; Economic policy; Southeast Asia; Africa housing Speaker; House of Representatives; Parliament Productivity Defence income management asylum seekers High Court; Indigenous; Indigenous Australians; Native Title Senate ACT Indigenous education Norfolk Island External Territories leadership aid Papua New Guinea emissions reduction fund; climate change child care funding Electoral reform politics refugees immigration asylum Canada procurement Australian Public Service firearms Indigenous health constitution High Court e-voting internet voting nsw state elections 44th Parliament women 2015 International Women's Day public policy ABS Population Age Pension Death penalty capital punishment execution Bali nine Bali bombings Trade skilled migration Private health insurance Medicare Financial sector EU national security fuel China soft power education violence against women domestic violence Fiji India Disability Support Pension disability employment welfare reform Tasmania Antarctica China Diplomacy Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency World Anti-Doping Agency Sport ASADA Federal Court WADA ADRV by-elections state and territories terrorism terrorist groups Bills corruption anti-corruption integrity fraud bribery transparency corporate ownership whistleblower G20 economic reform science innovation research and development transport standards Afghanistan Australian Defence Force NATO United States social media Members of Parliament Scottish referendum Middle East; national security; terrorism higher education Higher Education Loan Program HECS welfare policy pensions social services welfare ASIO Law Enforcement Australian Federal Police Australian Secret Intelligence Service intelligence community Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013 sexual abuse online grooming sexual assault of minors labour force workers

Show all
Show less
Back to top