In December 2013, headlines across the world proclaimed that Australia now had marriage equality – which it did, kind of, for five days.



Hopes were raised when the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) government passed a regional law allowing same-sex couples to marry. However, less than a week later, it was challenged by the federal government and annulled by the High Court of Australia. After five whole days of wedded bliss, almost 30 couples had their marriages dismissed.

However, in the same ruling, the High Court said the federal government has power under the Australian constitution to legislate for marriage equality – a landmark moment in the Australian campaign. Crucially, the ruling dismantled any constitutional barriers to the federal government legislating same-sex marriage.

Now with the Australian public and the law onside, marriage equality became a parliament-focused waiting game of careful lobbying and cultural change. But with a conservative government in power, advocates – including Australian Marriage Equality, same-sex couples, and various MPs – were settled in for the long haul.

By the start of 2015, most of Australia’s natural allies, along with a number of European and South American nations, had all made the change. Reform was looming in Ireland and the U.S., but in Australia, other than a few stray private members bills being ignored in the parliament, the issue lacked momentum.



MPs and advocates have several theories as to why Australia held out amidst a tide of socially similar countries changing their laws. They say Australia’s leaders haven’t listened to the community, meaning they haven’t prioritised the popular reform. Critics also say governments have folded under the influence of religious groups.

Graham Perrett says it hasn’t been a priority for any prime ministers since Howard, and that has prevented movement. “A leader can stop progress or move their flock further forward,” he says.



Like Abbott, Perrett has a gay sibling – two, in fact. He’s spent a lot of time in parliament advocating for marriage equality, chairing a 2012 inquiry into the issue – which garnered more submissions than any inquiry in the history of federation – and co-convening the Parliamentary Friendship Group for LGBTI Australians.

“But I’m not doing it because my brothers are gay,” he says. “I’m doing it because it’s right.”

It’s personal for Greens senator Janet Rice, too. Her wife, Penny, is transgender, and if Penny wanted to change the sex on her birth certificate, they would be forced to divorce.

Rice pulls no punches in blaming the delay on groups like the Australian Christian Lobby, and the leadership of the Catholic Church. “It’s the completely out-of-proportion influence of the conservative Christian community on both the Labor party and the Liberal party.” MPs are scared of defying them, she says.

Lyle Shelton is the managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby, and perhaps the most potent anti-marriage equality lobbyist in Australia. He says the difference in opinion between politicians and the public is largely due to the Australian media pushing a pro-marriage equality agenda. The public don’t hear his side, he says.

“I can put out media releases all the time, and I do, and mostly they’re ignored. But I can go and sit in an MP’s office and give them the other side of the story,” he says. “I just think that politicians have to think a bit deeper than the public. And most parliamentarians can see through these popular polls.”

Shelton says Australia’s politicians have held out for so long because they see the ramifications of marriage equality. As Shelton sees it, this means stripping children of the right to have a mother and a father. Even though thousands of same-sex couples are already raising children in Australia, Shelton does not separate the issues of same-sex parenting and same-sex marriage. He argues that legalizing same-sex marriage would open the floodgates for commercial surrogacy and other ways of having children that Shelton sees as ethically sketchy.

Shelton says he opposes artificial reproductive technologies for all couples, not just same-sex couples. “It’s not motivated out of any animus towards same-sex attracted people at all,” he says. “But when you’re looking at public policy, public policy should always be in the best interests of the child.”