Australia: A Case “Against Type”?

In 2004, the Marriage Amendment Act, introduced by the government of then Prime Minister John Howard (Liberal-National conservative coalition), became law in Australia. This act explicitly defined marriage as being between a man and a woman and refused recognition of same-sex marriages legally performed overseas. This move precipitated an all-out campaign for gay marriage and a number of Australian states have since introduced various forms of civil union or partnership recognition legislation, with some other measures granting greater recognition to same-sex partnerships being introduced by Howard’s successor, Kevin Rudd (Australian Labor Party). (The ALP does not, however, have a party position on gay marriage.) In 2013, the Australian Capital Territory adopted gay marriage legislation, which the Federal government led by current Prime Minister Tony Abbott (Liberal), promptly had overturned by the High Court (Australia’s highest court) under the terms of the 2004 Marriage Amendment Act. Same-sex marriage is thus unlikely to be adopted in Australia any time in the forseable future. Received wisdom would have indicated a contrary outcome. Australia is a prosperous Western liberal, secular, capitalist democracy and one of the most gay-friendly in the world. It was also the first country in the world to recognise same sex partnerships for immigration purposes (1982 test case followed by 1985 legislation). It has a Human Rights Commission (although no Human Rights Charter), a Federal political system with a constitutional parliamentary monarchy and is generally considered to be one of the world’s most successful multicultural democracies. On most of these counts, Australia in fact closely resembles Canada. The question to which this paper will respond is thus: how is it that a country that ticks all the boxes for a state likely to legislate in favour of gay marriage in the current global context, has moved in precisely the opposite direction?