Page 440 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 16 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
afternoon. Yes, there is a lot of history to this debate. There is, regrettably for Mr Hanson, more history than he cited, and I will turn to that in a moment.
The first point I make this afternoon is that this is a matter of importance to our community. When we saw the marriage equality laws adopted by this place a few short years ago, the response from our community was overwhelming, and it was overwhelmingly positive. Let us remember how much that moment galvanised support and momentum for the cause of marriage equality federally.
The passage of that act meant that, for the first time ever in the history of the commonwealth, people of the same sex could marry, and they did. And they did knowing that there was the prospect or the risk that the legality of that marriage ceremony could be put under question.
Mr Hanson talked about how we should have waited for the High Court decision before proceeding with the application of our same-sex marriage laws. But I am yet to meet a single same-sex couple in this city that share that view. I have spoken with many of the couples who chose to be married under ACT law. I have asked them, “Do you think it was wrong of us to commence the application of the act ahead of the High Court decision, even though there was the risk that it would be struck down?” Not a single one of them has ever said to me, “I think that was a mistake. I think you should have waited.” All of them said, “I am glad you gave us the opportunity.” Even though the High Court subsequently resolved the constitutional question, they were glad to be given the opportunity, because this place and this community recognised that their relationship was equal under law and should attain the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as other relationships.
I remember going to some of those same-sex marriage ceremonies. What I was struck by most importantly from those ceremonies was the ordinariness of this moment. There was nothing dangerous, radical or revolutionary about it. Here were two people declaring their love for each other and having it recognised through a legally binding ceremony—nothing more, nothing less. The sun still rose in the morning. Everyone else’s relationships carried on as they were. But they were happy. Surely, that is a good thing for parliaments to do.
It is the case that we have seen two points of disputation in relation to this matter. The first has been the question of legality of the ACT law. That was ultimately resolved by the High Court. It was not resolved in our favour. However, it is important to remember that at the time it was a live and open question as to whether or not states or territories could legislate in the manner that the ACT chose to do. It was a live and open question. By enacting that legislation, by seeing it challenged in the High Court, we achieved nationally a level of clarity around where responsibility was vested and who needed to take a decision to achieve equality for same-sex couples.
Members will note that since the High Court decision, there has been no attempt by any other state or territory parliament, despite the assertions of some who have said that they still could. Instead the debate is firmly focused now on where accountability ultimately lies, and that is in the federal parliament. That is a good thing, and it is a consequence of the passage of the ACT law that we are in that position.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video