Where a definition of de facto relationship in existing law failed to include same-sex couples, these definitions were amended or replaced so that the law would no longer apply differently to couples of opposite sex and same sex.
Authorised celebrants under the Marriage Act Under the Marriage Act Cth same sex marriage discrimination quotes quotations in Canberra, there same sex marriage discrimination quotes quotations in Canberra three major classes of authorised marriage celebrants. During the 44th Parliament, that debate has further intensified, triggered in part by international developments in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, the United States and Ireland where same-sex marriage is now being permitted either through legislative or judicial means.
The Leyonhjelm Bill extends this provision to cover Commonwealth marriage celebrants. However, if the proposal were to give the Commonwealth power to restrict the right of the Parliament to legislate on same-sex marriage, it would be unlikely to succeed.
In addition, the paper replicates parts of the Background Note, including a history and outline of the Marriage Act and an appendix dealing with other forms of relationship recognition. Proposed subsection 39 4 inserted by item 3, Schedule 1 to the Bill. It is not useful or relevant for this Court to examine how or why this has happened.
Both federal and state definitions contain an inclusive list of criteria to be used in determining whether a recognised relationship exists.
In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. The dissenters, for both studiously ignoring recent relevant precedents and for the more serious failure of not addressing the question of whether states can refuse to recognise same-sex marriages that are valid where they are celebrated.
Some would say that such an exemption would need to have limits. Well-known constitutional lawyer Professor George Williams has argued there are good legal reasons why Australia's state parliaments might continue to consider same-sex marriage law and that such debates would be far from a waste of time:.
Section 81 provides that a chaplain may refuse to solemnise a marriage on certain grounds.
The situation in the United States changed significantly and dramatically when on 26 June , the US Supreme Court handed down its decision in Obergefell v Hodges ,  deciding by the narrow majority of that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry, and that the right is protected under the 14th Amendment.
A related concern held by many people is that there are now some countries that permit same-sex couples to marry. Overseas experience would suggest that a long and protracted discussion about the meaning of marriage, leading up to a popular vote some 18 months away, is likely to bring a passionate, robust and even strident or divisive debate within the Australian community.
While the legislation had the support of both major parties the Labor Party expressed reservations about the process of enactment. Ernest Gaines Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?