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

Sofronoff stripped bare ... Deceit ... Betrayal ... Drumgold hung out to dry as a result of Sofronoff-Albrechtsen information "tryst" ... Latest derailment of conspiracies about the prosecution of manosphere darling, Bruce Lehrmann ... Derangement syndrome ... Sofronoff's "serious corruption" ... Devastation among devoted Banana Benders ... Read more >>

Politics Media Law Society


Bag lady ... Don't call the results until the fat lady sings … Senator's criminal record hidden from view … Inspiration from our B-grade business leaders … Forget the sexual harassment, Dicey Heydon is coming out of the deep freeze ... Read on >> 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

Capital crimes ... Dangerous words likely to be scrubbed from the Trump era lexicon ... Musk and his techie vandals ... The shredder going full blast at the FBI ... Stolen national security documents sent back to Mar-a-Lago ... Cabinet clown show ... White supremacy unleashed ... Consumer protection prosecutions dropped ... Lawyers and law firms threatened ... Roger Fitch from Washington ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian's Bloggers

Letter from London ... Holiday season ... Mother's Day, Lent, Chocolate ... Publisher wants money from Russell Brand for unpublished books ... Paralegal accessed forbidden documents to qualify for legal training contract ... Birthday card payout ... Floyd Alexander-Hunt files from Blighty ... Read more >> 

"True to form, the ACT corruption watchdog has put itself at the centre of perceptions of bias with a finding against eminent former Queensland judge Walter Sofronoff KC that serves only to debase the definition of serious corrupt conduct."

The Australian with its unique perspective on "bias" ... March 22, 2025 ... Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

Judgment for sale ... Melbourne University Publishing's decision to produce Justice Lee's Lehrmann judgment as a commercial product is not without its problems ... The omnishambles continues ... Melbourne lawyer Nilay B. Patel explains ... Read more >> 


Justinian's archive

Defamation and other misadventures ... So sexy, said the actress of the Chief Justice ... Daphnis dunks women in hot water ... Another (male) judge frocks-up ... Inside Madge's mouth ... Stephen Archer defamed ... David Levine strangles more English ... Justice Dean Mildren "the idiot" ... From Justinian's archive, April 22, 2004 ... 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.