Australian Parliament Allows Same-Sex Marriages

Amendments meant to safeguard freedoms of speech and religion for gay-marriage opponents were all rejected, though those issues may be considered later.

Members of parliament, from left, Cathy McGowan, Adam Brandt and Andrew Wilkie celebrate the passing of the Marriage Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives at Parliament House in Canberra, Thursday, Dec. 7, 2017.

By Published on December 7, 2017

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) — Australia’s Parliament voted Thursday to allow same-sex marriage across the nation, following a bitter debate settled by a much-criticized government survey of voters that endorsed change.

The public gallery in the House of Representatives erupted with applause when the bill passed. It changes the definition of marriage from solely between a man and a woman to “a union of two people” excluding all others. The legislation passed with a majority that wasn’t challenged, although five lawmakers registered their opposition.

The Senate passed the same legislation last week 43 votes to 12. After royal assent and other formalities, the law will likely take effect in about a month, with the first weddings expected about a month later.

Amendments meant to safeguard freedoms of speech and religion for gay-marriage opponents were all rejected, though those issues may be considered later. The government has appointed a panel to examine how to safeguard religious freedoms once gay marriage is a reality in Australia.

Lawmakers advocating same-sex marriage had argued that the national postal survey in November mandated a change of the marriage definition alone, so changing the law should not be delayed by other considerations.

Gay marriage was endorsed by 62 percent of voters who responded to the postal ballot.

“It is now our job as members of Parliament to pass a fair bill that does not extend or create any new discriminations,” an emotional government lawmaker Warren Entsch, who helped draft the bill, told Parliament. “It is a strong bill that already strikes the right balance between equality and freedom of religion.”

Most gay rights advocates believed the government should have allowed marriages years ago and saw various ideas for a public survey as a delaying tactic. The U.N. Human Rights Committee had called the ballot survey “an unnecessary and divisive public opinion poll.”

The current bill allows churches and religious organizations an exemption from participating in gay weddings without violating Australian anti-discrimination laws.

Existing civil celebrants can also refuse to officiate at gay weddings, but celebrants registered after gay marriage becomes law would not be exempt from relevant anti-discrimination laws.

One of the rejected amendments would have ensured Australians could speak freely about their traditional views of marriage without fear of legal action. It was proposed by Attorney-General George Brandis and supported by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, both gay marriage supporters.

Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who was a high-profile advocate of traditional marriage, told Parliament that Turnbull and opposition leader Bill Shorten had failed to deliver detailed protections for freedoms of speech, conscience and religion in the bill.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

“A promise was made by the leaders of this Parliament and the promise has not adequately been delivered on,” Abbott said.

Abbott pointed to an Australian teenager who lost her job for advocating against gay marriage on social media and an Australian Catholic bishop who was taken before a state anti-discrimination tribunal over a pamphlet he published extolling traditional marriage. The complaint against the bishop was dropped.

“The last thing we should want to do is to subject Australians to new forms of discrimination in place of old ones that are rightly gone,” he said.

Government lawmaker Trevor Evans ruled out an Australian equivalent of the U.S. Supreme Court case in which a Christian baker declined to create a cake for a gay wedding reception, arguing he was exercising artistic freedom and was not violating Colorado anti-discrimination laws since he didn’t refuse service to the couple based solely on the fact they were gay.

“Let’s be honest here, for a case like that to arise in Australia, it would require a gay couple who care more about activism than about the success of their own wedding, to find a business operator who cares more about religious doctrine than the commercial success of their own small business, and for both of them to commit to having a fight,” Evans told Parliament.

“Typical Australians would genuinely question the bona fides of the players in a case like that and the slim prospects of that occurring doesn’t warrant the pages and pages of commentary and debate that have been dedicated to it,” he added.

Several gay marriage opponents in Turnbull’s conservative coalition have regarded marriage equality as inevitable and have welcomed an end to an issue that has long divided the government ranks.

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, a same-sex marriage opponent who oversaw the postal ballot, said he felt “great satisfaction” that the issue was resolved.

“It was a polarizing issue on which good Australians had strongly and sincerely held views on both sides of the argument,” Cormann said.

The result is a political win for Turnbull, who became prime minister after deposing Abbott in 2015 in an internal government leadership ballot.

Abbott was head-butted by a gay rights advocate during the postal survey campaign in September. Kevin Rudd, a center-left Labor Party prime minister whom Abbott defeated in elections in 2013, blamed the postal ballot for an assault on his 19-year-old godson as he campaigned for marriage equality a week earlier.

Veteran gay rights campaigner Rodney Croome said he expected the first same-sex weddings in Australia would not take place until February.

The law will likely take effect after a month. State laws then require couples to give 28 days’ notice of their intention to marry, Croome said.


Copyright 2017 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • JP

    Gay “marriage” is impossible. To have a marriage you must have a husband and a wife. Only a man can be a husband and a woman a wife. Without these 2 different sexes in a marriage you don’t have a marriage. What we have are legal fake marriages.

    • If two Gay men get married, they are both husbands. If two Lesbians get married, they are both wives. What else is there to understand?

      Whether YOU consider it marriage is irrelevant. There was never any constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits and opportunities that Straight couples have always taken for granted.

      Oh, I know what you’re saying: “But … but … only a man and woman can create new life together!”

      Again, it’s irrelevant. Couples do not need to marry to make babies, and the ability or even desire to make babies is not a prerequisite for marriage license.

      • JP

        2 husbands don’t make a marriage nor do 2 wives. You need one of each in a relationship to each other to make a marriage. What else is there to understand?

        • From the government’s standpoint, you’re wrong. But feel free to hold on to your prejudices.

      • Andrew Mason

        So by your logic, when a man marries a little girl she becomes a wife, if school teacher marries her 5 year old pupil they become husband and wife? Just because you write a law saying black is white or up is down does not make it so.

        Homosexual couples already had full equality with non-homosexuals. Now inequality reigns. The Australian government has been quite clear that they refuse to protect freedom and equality but are instead committed to empowering bigotry.

        • Andrew, you cases you cite are violations of age of consent laws. They are no more relevant to Gay marriage than Straight marriage.

          • Andrew Mason

            Actually the examples I gave are no different to SSM. You have to modify the law to make it legal sure, but once the law is changed then child marriage would be just as legal as homosexual marriage. Some countries currently outlaw both, others permit one or the other.

          • Yeah, right. If you allow a Gay couple to marry, you have to let fish marry bicycles. Slippery slope and all that.

          • Andrew Mason

            The term slippery slope is used to disparage arguments yet ignores the fact that some slippery slope arguments are based on observation. X happens then Y happens then …

            As for fish marrying bicycles, do fish or bikes marry? Since they don’t marry here the risk is none one that perturbs me. By contrast the arguments for homosexual marriage aka ‘marriage equality’ also demand that other forms of marriage be legalised – polygamous, incestuous, child etc.

          • Polygamy, incest, and pedophilia are still illegal. If you wish to change that, have at it, but you’ll get no help from me.

          • Andrew Mason

            Actually polygamy is merely not recognised by Western law. A polygamous de facto relationship is legal, and marriages in jurisdictions where polygamy is legal are generally treated as de facto. There was a court case in Ireland not so long ago as I recall when a man’s first wife sought to join the second wife in Ireland. From memory the court reclassified the ‘original’ (second) wife as a defacto, recognised the first wife as the original wife, and granted her spousal legal status.

            As for incest, whilst marriage may not yet be legal, many incestuous relationships are no longer criminalised.

            Actually paedophilia is legal in most, possibly all countries, including the US. Like homosexuality it is a lifestyle that is punished in various countries, but the orientation itself is legal.

          • Well, there are plenty of men that are married, and have other girlfriends on the side. And even if the guy calls them “sister wives” or whatever, they are no recognized for any legal purpose.

            In any case, after “Lawrence v. Texas,” there was simply no legal justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same right to marry as Straight couples, especially since so many of the financial and legal incentives to marry come from the government.

The Strangely Mysterious Beauty of Christmas
Tom Gilson
More from The Stream
Connect with Us