!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

Marriage Without a Man

!

Understanding the Emergence of Same-Sex Marriage in Australia

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

This thesis is presented by Max Denton 359917

to the School of Historical and Philosophical Studies
in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Bachelor of Arts (Honours)
in the field of History
in the School of Historical and Philosophical Studies
Faculty of Arts
The University of Melbourne

Supervisor: Professor Joy Damousi

Date: 14 October 2014
Word Count: 15,589

!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Table of Contents

!
Acknowledgments .. 3
Abbreviations .. 4
Introduction . 5
Chapter One Remaking an Institution 9
Chapter Two Same-Sex Marriage in the 70s 19
Chapter Three 2004: The Turning Point .. 34
Chapter Four Debating Marriage .. 48
Conclusion . 61
Bibliography .. 64

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
!
!

!2

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisor Professor Joy Damousi for her gracious and continued support
throughout the year. She has encouraged me at every turn and given me much-needed guidance
when I was completely lost. I would also like to thank the volunteers at the Australian Lesbian and
Gay Archives, especially Nick Henderson and Gary Jaynes for helping me locate sources and find
my way around the archives. Finally, a thank you to my friends, family and housemates for their
support and endurance throughout the year.

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!3

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

List of Abbreviations

ABC: Australian Broadcasting Corporation

ALGA: Australian Lesbian and Gay Archives
AME: Australian Marriage Equality
CAMP: Campaign Against Moral Persecution
CCC: Christs Community Church
DOMA: Defence of Marriage Act (US)
GLRL: Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby (NSW)
VGLRL: Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!4

!
!
Introduction

In 2004, the Howard Government amended the Marriage Act to explicitly restrict same-sex couples
from the legal definition of marriage. This move received support from both sides of federal politics
and, according to opinion polls, a plurality of the Australian public.1 Just seven years later, same-sex
marriage enjoyed broad mainstream support and was an election issue that Labor and the Coalition
found difficult to avoid.2 In the midst of the 2010 Australian federal election, a man stood up on the
Australian Broadcasting Corporations political television program Q&A to ask the then-Leader of
the Opposition Tony Abbott a question:

!
I am a Vietnam veteran. I have been a plumbing contractor for 37 years and I support, with a
social conscience, the Liberal philosophy. I have a gay son. When I was confronted with that
situation in a very short amount of time and with due consideration I accepted his position
and I overcame my ignorance and my fear of gays and the idea of gay marriage. When will
you, Mr Abbott, take up the same when will you, sir, overcome your fear and ignorance
of gay people and give them the dignity and respect that you'd happily give to all other
Australians?3

!
To the heterosexual questioner, and many lesbian and gay activists, supporting same-sex marriage
had become a symbol of social acceptance of homosexuality and an indicator of dignity and
respect. What explains such a relatively quick emergence of same-sex marriage as a contemporary
social issue in Australia? And why did the lesbian and gay rights movement eventually embrace
marriage as a goal? This thesis will explore these questions. It will seek to historicise same-sex
marriage debates as an important part of both lesbian and gay history, and the history of marriage.

!
1

Newspoll Market Research Survey, 4-6 June 2004, available from http://
polling.newspoll.com.au.tmp.anchor.net.au/image_uploads/cgi-lib.17497.1.0601_gay.pdf [13 September
2014].
2 Ari

Sharp, Rise in support for gay marriage, The Age, June 16, 2009.

Geoff Thomas, Tony Abbott joins Q&A, ABC TV Online, 16 August 2010, transcript available from
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2978032.htm [5 July 2014].

!5

This thesis shall trace debates about same-sex marriage since the first emergence of a public lesbian
and gay political scene in Australia. It shall identify and explore two key shifts that have facilitated
the emergence of same-sex marriage as a mainstream political issue. The first is a redefinition of
radicalism within the lesbian and gay political movement, which has seen a shift from radical
politics based on ideas of difference towards a politics of social normalisation and mainstream
acceptance. The second is a fundamental transformation in social conceptions and experiences of
the institution of marriage in Australian. In doing so, this thesis seeks to make a unique and
distinctive contribution to the history of marriage in Australia.

!
There has not yet been a comprehensive history written about the campaign for same-sex marriage
in Australia.4 There has been much academic research conducted on same-sex marriage, but most of
this has come from a social science or legal perspective.5 In the United States there has been some
historical writing on the topic, most notably in the 2005 book Why Marriage? by George Chauncey,
which historicised the same-sex marriage campaign as a successor to the American gay liberation
movement.6 Elise Chenier and Stweart-Winter have written articles in the same vein, and Chenier is
currently writing a book on same-sex marriages performed in North American during the 1960s and
70s.7 Consequently, this thesis shall draw on a broad range of historical and social science writing
around feminism, marriage and sexuality. The work of Marilyn Lake has detailed the womens
movement and radical feminism in Australia, and how these groups have theorised the struggle

Some exceptions to this are the historical overview of same-sex marriage presented in: Dennis Altman, the
End of the Homosexual? (St Lucia, Queensland: University of Queensland Press, 2013), 190-202; The
examination of the history of social constructions of marriage in Australia in: Charlotte Frew. The Social
Construction of Marriage in Australia: Implications for Same-Sex Unions. Law In Context 28:1 (June
2010); and the social and historical perspectives offered in: Victor Marsh, ed, Speak Now: Australian
perspectives on same-sex marriage (Melbourne: Clouds of Magellan, 2011).
5

For example: Kristen Walker, The Same-Sex Marriage Debate in Australia. International Journal Of
Human Rights 11, 1:2 (Spring 2007): 109-130; Normann Witzleb, Marriage as the Last Frontier? SameSex Relationship Recognition in Australia. International Journal Of Law, Policy & The Family 25:2
(August 2011): 135-164; Jane Edwards, Marriage is sacred: The religious rights arguments against gay
marriage in Australia. Culture, Health & Sexuality 9:3 (May-June 2007): 247-261.
6

George Chauncey, Why Marriage?: The History Shaping Todays Debate Over Gay Equality (New York:
Basic Books, 2005).
7

Elise Chenier, Gay Marriage, 1970s Style. Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide 20:2 (March 2013): 19-21;
Timothy Stewart-Winter, What Was Same-Sex Marriage? Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide 13:1 (2006):
33-35; Chenier also runs a blog detailing the research for her upcoming book, available from http://
elisechenier.dreamwidth.org [27 August 2014].

!6

against institutions like marriage.8 The work of historians Graham Willett, Robert Reynolds, Robert
French, Garry Wotherspoon and others have established a rich history of gay, lesbian and queer
identity and activism in Australia.9 Internationally, historians such as Elizabeth Abbott, Stephanie
Coontz and Nancy Cott have written histories of marriage and its complex interaction with social
and political life.10

!
This thesis will open up the topic of same-sex marriage to historical scrutiny and position it within
an Australian context. It shall interrogate Walkers assertion that lesbian and gay communities in
Australia have historically held little interest in marriage.11 Chapter one shall examine the changing
social and legal constructions of marriage in Australian society. Chapter two will analyse early
debates and movements within lesbian and gay communities during the 1970s relating to same-sex
marriage and the nature of same-sex relationships, with a particular focus on the activities of
homosexual churches. Chapter three will explore the shifting priorities of lesbian and gay activists
during the 1990s and trace the circumstances that led to the 2004 amendment to the Marriage Act,
which was a decisive turning point for same-sex marriage. Chapter four will examine same-sex de
facto relationship recognition and its interaction with same-sex marriage, then review the arguments
put forward by same-sex marriage campaigners after 2004. This thesis constructs a social, cultural
and legal history. It shall draw upon lesbian and gay newspapers, mainstream metropolitan
newspapers and the holdings of the Australian Lesbian and Gay Archives (ALGA), which include
photographs, campaign documents and political newsletters.

!
8

Marilyn Lake, Getting Equal: The History of Australian Feminism (St Leonards, NSW: Allen and Unwin,
1999); Marilyn Lake, Marriage as Bondage: The Anomaly of the Citizen Wife. Australian Historical
Studies 122 (1999): 116-129.
9

Graham Willett, Living Out Loud: A History of Gay and Lesbian Activism in Australia (Sydney: Allen and
Unwin, 2000); Robert Reynolds, From Camp to Queer: Re-making the Australian Homosexual (Carlton
South, Vic: Melbourne University Press, 2002); Garry Wotherspoon, City of the Plain: History of a gay subculture (Sydney: Hale & Iremonger, 1991); See also: Graham Willett and Yorick Small, eds, Intimacy,
Violence and Activism: Gay and Lesbian Perspectives on Australasian History and Society (Clayton, Vic:
Monash University Publishing, 2013); Liz Ross, Revolution Is For Us: The Left and Gay Liberation in
Australia (Melbourne: Interventions, 2013).
10

Elizabeth Abbott, History of Marriage: From Same Sex Unions to Private Vows and Common Law, the
Surprising Diversity of a Tradition (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2010); Stephanie Coontz, Marriage, a
History: From Obedience to Intimacy or How Love Conquered Marriage, (New York: Viking, 2005); Nancy
Cott, Public vows: A history of marriage and the nation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000).
11

Walker, The Same-Sex Marriage Debate in Australia, 109.

!7

By examining the history of same-sex marriage, we uncover a complex and diverse interaction
between homosexuality and marriage. This interaction touches on contested ideas such as the nature
of the family, same-sex intimacy and the identity of lesbian and gay Australians.12 Consequently,
this study seeks to make a contribution to the history of sexuality and family. Same-sex marriage
has had a longer and more complex role in lesbian and gay history than is usually assumed. It was,
as we shall find, an important factor in the historic shift in lesbian and gay communities that saw a
reconceptualisation of radical political ideas informed by gay liberation and feminism, towards a
more mainstream civil and social rights approach. Moreover, a history of same-sex marriage can tell
us much about the nature of marriage as a socially constructed institution in a constant state of
revision. Over the last century marriage has evolved and adapted alongside broader social and
cultural changes, to reflect changes in Australian society. It is vital to understand and explore this
evolution, as it can tell us much about the complex and diverse face of Australian society today.

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
12

This thesis shall use the term homosexual to refer to both male and female same-sex attracted people. It
uses the term lesbian and gay rather than queer or LGBTI (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender,
Intersex), although it acknowledges the problems of this language. More than just lesbian and gay
individuals were involved in homosexual movements in Australia, but it uses the term lesbian and gay for
the sake of brevity and readability. It primarily uses same-sex when discussing lesbian and gay
relationships.

!8

!
!
Chapter One

Remaking an Institution

!
!
!

To understand how and why same-sex marriage emerged as a political issue in Australian around
2004, we must first understand how the nature and role of marriage in Australian society has shifted
over the last century. Along with a broad social transformation in the way marriage is experienced
by individuals, there are two important trends which have presaged the contemporary same-sex
marriage debate in Australia: the equalisation of male and female rights within the institution of
marriage, and the equalisation of rights between married couples and unmarried de facto couples.
This chapter shall examine the ways in which marriage had changed by the time the Howard
Government introduced amendments to the Marriage Act in 2004. By the turn of the century,
Australian understandings and interactions with marriage had been fundamentally transformed.

!
Australias legal construction of marriage was inherited from English common law. Englands
Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 gave courts the ability to grant divorces, rather than
requiring an act of parliament.13 Between 1858 and 1873, the Australian colonies introduced
legislation to allow divorce in limited circumstances.14 Divorce law was state-based until
Commonwealth legislation standardised it with the Matrimonial Causes Act 1959.15 This was
followed two years later by the Marriage Act 1961, which federalised marriage law.16 It was not
explicitly stated in these laws that marriage was between one man and one woman, but it had been

13 Abbott,

History of Marriage, 226; Henry Finlay, Lawmaking in the Shadow of the Empire: Divorce in
Colonial Australia. Journal of Family History 24:74 (1999): 83.
14

Finlay, Lawmaking in the Shadow of the Empire, 83.

15

Divorce. Australian Statute Establishes Uniform Federal Law for Marital Actions. Harvard Law Review
74:2 (1960): 424-427; Matrimonial Causes Act 1959, Commonwealth, available from http://
www.comlaw.gov.au/details/c2004c05265 [29 August 2014].
16

Margaret Harrison, Australias Family Law Act: The First Twenty-Five Years. International Journal of
Law, Policy and the Family 16 (2002): 3; Marriage Act 1961 (Commonwealth), available from http://
www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/ [29 August 2014].

!9

implicit in English common law since Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee in 1866.17 Still, even in the
19th century, marriage was more than just an inherited English institution. Indeed, as Frew notes,
Australia tailored marriage to suit the colonial environment.18 For example the English restrictions
on inter-denominational marriage, particularly between Catholics and Protestants, was counter
productive for the colonial objective of encouraging marriage. Therefore, those restrictions were
repealed.19 Similar reforms took place in the early colonies to allow a man to marry the sister of his
deceased wife.20 The institution of marriage was, from the earliest days of the Australian colonies,
adapted to fit social and political requirements. Still, marriage was primarily considered by many as
a contract of sexual access in exchange for financial maintenance.21 This conformed to the popular
construction of gender norms within marriage, inherited from Britain and popular in the United
States the man as rationalistic and strong provider, the woman as passionate and emotional
mother.22

!
Throughout the 20th century, Australian feminists and womens rights campaigners grappled with
the negative effects of marriage on the agency and independence of women. In the first decade of
the 1900s, as women in Australia were achieving the right to vote, they were still subject to the
tyrannies that could exist within marriage.23 At the time, married women in Australia had no rights
to property, no automatic rights to custody of children, and through conjugal rights were denied
sovereignty over their own bodies.24 Consequently, post-suffragette feminists focused on reforming
the institution of marriage. In particular they fought for wife and mother to be considered a rightsbaring political citizen pushing for equal custody and inheritance rights, entitlement to state

17

Sandra Berns and Alan Berman, Homophobia Perpetuated: The demise of the Inquiry into the Marriage
Amendment Bill 2004 (Cth). Alternative Law Journal 30 (2005) 104; Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee
(1866), Courts of Probate and Divorce, 1 P. & D. 130.
18

Frew, The Social Construction of Marriage in Australia, 79.

19

Ibid., 80.

20

Ibid.

21

Lake, Getting Equal, 19.

22 Abbott,

History of Marriage, 353.

23

Lake, Getting Equal, 19.

24

Ibid.

!10

services, easy access to health care and economic independence.25 Australian feminists such as Rose
Scott argued for economic independence as a way to end the state of effective sexual slavery many
wives found themselves in.26 This continued into the 1920s and 30s, when feminists like Henrietta
Greville questioned why women must forfeit their economic agency when they got married.27 With
women gaining the vote across the country by 1911, the contradiction between their role as a
political citizen with civil rights and their subservient domestic role made marriage seem
increasingly anachronistic.28 Radical critiques of marriage emerged in the 60s, and over the next
three decades feminists referred to marriage as an institution.29 As Brook argues, this critique saw
marriage as a sexist institution, and sought to separate an oppressive social structure from the
sometimes positive experiences of those within it.30 By this reckoning, women were subordinated
by heterosexual institutions, and marriage was seen as a central institution of the patriarchy.31 As we
will see, this critique helped define the way that lesbian and gay rights movements reacted to the
concept of same-sex marriage.

!
Thanks primarily to agitation by the womens rights movement, over the 20th century the institution
of marriage in Australia saw several legal changes that have fundamentally altered its social
function. As detailed by Lake, these included political rights, custody rights, increasing the age of
consent, maternity benefits, the criminalisation of rape in marriage, child-care centres, refuge
centres, the supporting parents benefit, equal pay legislation and some affirmative action
programs.32 These reforms, aimed at enhancing womens rights, fundamentally altered the
relationship between husband and wife. By the start of the 21st century, an increase in the economic
independence of women and the effective legal equality of women inside and outside of marriage

25

Ibid., 71.

26

Ibid., 5.

27

Ibid., 91.

28

Ibid., 87.

29

Coontz, Marriage, a History, 255; Heather Brook, Stalemate: Rethinking the politics of marriage.
Feminist Theory 3 (2002): 47; Germain Greer, The Female Eunuch (London: Paladin: 1971); Carole
Pateman, The Sexual Contract (Cambridge: Polity, 1988).
30

Brook, Stalemate, 47.

31

Ibid., 47-49.

32

Lake, Getting Equal, 15-6.

!11

was reshaping the role of marriage in society.33 At the same time, social and cultural changes were
taking place in developed societies across the world. The pill, contraception and the
decriminalisation of abortion granted women an unprecedented degree of sexual freedom.34 These
social changes also altered married life, allowing couples to have less children and women to work
more.35 The increase in womens economic independence further changed the dynamic of marriage
by making women less reliant on marriage for financial stability.36

!
One of the most significant changes to Australian marriage came with the introduction of no-fault
divorce with the Whitlam Governments Family Law Act 1975. The Family Law Act replaced the
Matrimony Causes Act 1959, which had provided a list of fourteen grounds for divorce based on the
fault of one party.37 These grounds which were similar to various state-based laws preceding
them combined with the social stigma around divorce, meant divorce prior to the 1970s was
rare.38 The Family Law Act removed these requirements, allowing the dissolution of a marriage to
be granted upon proof being presented that a coupled had been separated for at least twelve
months.39 Judges were given little ability to prevent a divorce, and no party had to be considered at
fault by the court. In the first year of the Family Law Acts operations, the number of divorces in
Australia more than doubled from the previous year 66,092 in 1976 compared to 28,308 in
1975.40 No-fault divorce dramatically increased womens agency within marriage, allowing them to
more easily dissolve a marriage if it was no longer functioning. By 2004 these reforms meant
marriage was a more benign and formally equal institution individuals could freely enter into
and exit marriage with relative ease.

!
33

Stephanie Coontz, The world historical transformation of marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family
66:4 (November 2004): 975.
34

Coontz, Marriage, a History, 254.

35

Ibid.

36

Coontz, The world historical transformation of marriage, 975.

37

Harrison, Australias Family Law Act, 3.

38

Ibid.

39

Ibid., 4.

40

Ibid.

!12

In the 1980s in Australia, a second major change to marriage began: the emergence of legally
equivalent unmarried, or de facto, relationship recognition. In 1984, the New South Wales
Parliament passed the De Facto Relationship Act, which began the state-level legal recognition of
unmarried relationships.41 Over the next two decades similar legislation followed in other states and
territories, providing for the division of property when an unmarried couple separated.42 Today, De
facto couples are generally recognised after two years of cohabitation.43 States, and after some time
the Commonwealth, progressively extended rights and benefits to de facto couples that had
previously been available only to married couples.44 Although Commonwealth recognition was ad
hoc and slow, by 2008 the position of married and de facto unmarried couples was essentially
equivalent in federal law, and in almost all state and territory law.45 This transformation, while
comparable with reforms in Canada, New Zealand and parts of Europe, differed greatly from the
United Kingdom and the United States.46 In the US in particular, marriage has remained the primary
federal framework through which rights and benefits are granted to couples.47 Nonetheless, the
breakdown of the distinction between marriage and nonmarriage has happened in varying degrees
across most developed nations, and has been characterised by Andrew Cherlin as the
deinstitutionalisation of marriage.48 This deinstitutionalisation, or delegalisation, of marriage has,
according to Coontz and Cott, allowed new and diverse conceptions of intimate relationships to
emerge.49 For the first time in Australian history, marriage lost its monopoly on the state recognition
of relationships.

!
41

Witzleb, Marriage as the Last Frontier? 137.

42

Ibid., 137.

43

Walker, The Same-Sex Marriage Debate in Australia, 110.

44

Jenni Millbank, De facto relationships, same-sex and surrogate parents: Exploring the scope and effects
of the 2008 federal relationship reforms. Australian Journal of Family Law 23:3 (November 2009): 2-3.
45

Ibid., 2; Walker, The Same-Sex Marriage Debate in Australia, 110.

46

Millbank, De facto relationships, same-sex and surrogate parents, 2.

47

Chauncey, Why Marriage?, 128.

48 Andrew

Cherlin, The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family 66:4
(2004): 848-861; Coontz, The world historical transformation of marriage, 978.
49

Coontz, The world historical transformation of marriage, 978, Nancy Cott, Public Vows: A history of
marriage and the nation (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2000).

!13

This decoupling of marriage from the legal recognition of relationships meant that after the
decriminalisation of homosexuality same-sex couples were slowly included in the definition of de
facto relationships. After decriminalisation of male homosexuality at the state level in the 1980s and
90s, focus shifted towards achieving state recognition of same-sex relationships. In 1994 the ACT
enacted the Domestic Relationships Act, which extended some de facto rights to same-sex
couples.50 This Act allowed courts to adjust the property and financial interests of same-sex couples
in the event of a relationship break down.51 Similar legislation was passed in NSW in 1999, which
went further in extending de facto benefits to same-sex couples by removing all reference to gender
from the NSW legal definition of de facto.52 The Property (Relationships) Legislation Amendment
Act (NSW) amended twenty pieces of legislation from inheritance to stamp duty in order to
equalise the treatment of same-sex and opposite-sex couples.53 Between 2001 and 2006, with some
variation between jurisdictions, all states and territories adopted legislation that extended
comprehensive de facto relationship status to same-sex couples.54 It wasnt until 2008 that same-sex
de facto couples were recognised federally.55 The substance of these reforms came from the Same
Sex: Same Entitlements report by the Australian Human Rights Commission and an internal
Commonwealth audit.56 The reforms amended over 85 Acts of Parliament to remove gendered
50

Domestic Relationships Act 1994, ACT, available from http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1994-28/

current/pdf/1994-28.pdf [7 July 2014].
51

Witzleb, Marriage as the Last Frontier? 137.

52

Ibid.

53

Ibid., 138; Property (Relationships) Legislation Amendment Act 1999 No 4, NSW, available from http://
www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/0/719a5271ce2bf6ed4a25676f0028dd46/$FILE/
1999-4.pdf [28 September 2014].
54

Witzleb, Marriage as the Last Frontier? 138; Reg Graycar and Jenni Millbank, From Functional
Family to Spinster Sisters: Australias Distinctive Path to Relationship Recognition. Washing University
Journal of Law and Policy 24 (2007): 122; In Victoria the relevant legislation was the Statute Law
Amendment (Relationships) Act 2001, in Queensland the Discrimination Law Amendment Act 2002, in
Western Australia the Acts Amendment (Lesbian and Gay Law Reform) Act 2002, in the Northern Territory
the Law Reform (Gender, Sexuality and De Facto Relationships) Act 2003, in Tasmania the Relationships
Act 2003, and in South Australia the Statutes Amendment (Equal Superannuation Entitlements for Same Sex
Couples) Act 2003 and the Statutes Amendment (Domestic Partners) Act 2006.
55

Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth LawsGeneral Law Reform) Act 2008,
Commonwealth, http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2008A00144 [1 September 2014]; Same-Sex
Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth LawsSuperannuation) Act 2008, Commonwealth,
available from http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2008A00134 [1 September 2014]; Family Law
Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Act 2008, Commonwealth, available from
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2008A00115 [1 September 2014].
56 Australian

Human Rights Commission, Same-Sex: Same Entitlements, Final Report, 2007, available
from https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/same-sex-same-entitlements [1 September 2014].

!14

references and expand the federal definition of de facto partners to include same-sex couples.57 As
detailed by Graycar and Millbank, the existence of a equalised de facto definition for unmarried
heterosexual couples in Australia facilitated the legal recognition of same-sex relationships and
defined the same-sex law reform campaigns of the 90s.58

!
These legal and social changes to marriage have resulted in a dramatic shift in the way marriage is
personally experienced by individuals within Australian society. By 2001 the number of Australians
over the age of 15 who were legally married, according to ABS statistics, was down to 54.6 percent
from 65.4 percent in 1976.59 Yet, as noted by de Vaus, marriage has remained a popular institution,
and in 2001 the marriage rate was actually higher than it was in 1901, when just 46.4 percent were
married.60 Similarly, by 1995-7 some 81 percent of Australians did not consider marriage to be an
outdated institution, this figure having only dropped by 6 percent since 1981.61 Nonetheless, since
the 70s there has been a steady increase in the age at which Australians have chosen to get married.
Between 1975 and 2001, the median age for first marriages increased from 23.3 years for men and
21.1 for women, to 29 and 27.1 respectively.62 Overall, younger people are choosing to marry later,
often well into their twenties or thirties, and usually after a period of cohabitation.63 Unmarried
cohabitation itself has become more common and more socially accepted.64 Accompanying this
shift has been an increase in the rate of divorced individuals (from 2.3 percent of the population in
1976 to 7.4 percent by 2001), an increase in the size of the population choosing never to get married
(a third of the population by 2001), and a decline in the religious nature of marriage.65 By 2001, a
majority of marriages were performed by civil celebrants, a rapid transformation from forty years
57

Commonwealth Attorney-Generals Department, Overview of the Australian Governments same-sex law

reforms, available from http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/Pages/
Samesexreforms.aspx [1 September 2014].
58

Gaycar and Millbank, From Functional Family to Spinster Sisters, 121-147.

59

David de Vaus, Diversity and Change in Australian Families: Statistical Profiles (Melbourne: Australian
Institute of Family Studies, 2004), 160.
60

Ibid., 160; Michele Simons, (Re)-forming marriage in Australia? Family Matters 73 (2006): 46.

61

de Vaus, Diversity and Change in Australian Families, 163-4.

62

Ibid., 166.

63

Ibid., 160-9, 115.

64

Ibid., 111-4.

65

Ibid., 160-8; Frew, The Social Construction of Marriage in Australia, 81.

!15

earlier, when almost all marriages were performed in churches.66 Marriage has not disappeared from
Australian society, but it has been decentered, and the way it is experienced by Australians has
shifted. As Brook notes, marriage has seemingly become more diverse and negotiable, and
increasingly less conventional.67

!
!
Changing Role of the Australian Family

!
The makeup of the Australian family has transformed alongside the institution of marriage, as new
and increasingly diverse types of families have become more common. By 2001, because of
contraception, abortion law reform and changing social norms, Australians were having less
children and the fertility rate had plummeted from its postwar high.68 More couples were remaining
child-free, and the average family size dropped from 4.5 persons per household in 1911 to 2.6 in
2001.69 By 2001, almost a quarter of Australians were living alone.70 As couples were getting
married later, they also chose to have children later the median age at which women gave birth
was higher in 2001 than any time during the preceding century, at 30.2 years.71 New types of
families emerged in Australia. Single-parent families increased, from 7.1 percent of all families in
1976 to 10.7 percent by 2001.72 From 1976 there was a steady increase in step families (families
with at least one step-child) and blended families (families with at least one step-child and one
natural child of both parents).73 Although there is a lack of data available for comparison, there was
at the turn of the millennium a significant number of same-sex couples: it is estimated based on the
2001 Census that there was 28,144 female same-sex couples and 41,535 male same-sex couples.74
66

de Vaus, Diversity and Change in Australian Families, 168.

67

Brook also argues that contemporary marriage can be a productive arena for feminist critique and theory,
in Brook, Stalemate: Rethinking the Politics of Marriage, 45.
68

de Vaus, Diversity and Change in Australian Families, 184.

69

Ibid., 21, 7-8.

70

Ibid., 100.

71

Ibid., 196.

72

Ibid., 43.

73

Ibid., 60-1.

74

Ibid., 83.

!16

Of these couples, many had children, although female couples were much more likely than male
couples. Up to one in five lesbian couples had children living with them in 2001, compared to less
than five percent of male same-sex couples.75

!
These trends in the way Australians experienced intimate relationships and childrearing aligned
with trends in other developed democracies: a broad retreat from marriage, a move towards
alternatives such as cohabitation and a steady deinstitutionalisation of marriage.76 Hewitt and
Baxter note that there is significant debate in the social sciences around the precise causes: whether
changing social attitudes and values, the economic independence of women, the effects of
contraception, or legal changes.77 Ultimately, the slow retreat from marriage has deeper roots than
the last century of social and legal change. A significant cause, as detailed by Coontz, comes from
the revolutionary new ideal of the love match that promulgated during the 17th and 18th
centuries.78 The idea that marriage should be based on love and happiness and not on political,
social or economic considerations was, according to Coontz, revolutionary.79 This idea
fundamentally altered the expectations of individuals in marriage, and destabilised traditional
constructions of marriage and gender relations over the long-term.80 As we shall explore, the idea
that marriage was an expression of romantic love would later be put forward by lesbian and gay
campaigners as a key argument for same-sex marriage.81

!
By the turn of the millennium, husband and wife had equal rights within marriage and divorce was
easily accessible. With the rise of de facto recognition, marriage was no longer the primary means
by which the state recognised relationships. Marriage was, for the most part, no longer an

75

Ibid., 84.

76

Robyn Parker, Perspectives on the future of marriage. Family Matters 72 (2005): 78; Belinda Hewitt and
Janeen Baxter, Who gets married in Australia? The characteristics associated with a transition into first
marriage 2001-6. Journal of Sociology 48 (2012): 43-4.
77

Hewitt and Baxter, Who gets married in Australia?, 44.

78

Coontz, The world historical transformation of marriage, 977-8.

79

Ibid., 978.

80

Ibid., 977-8; Parker, Perspectives on the future of marriage, 79.

81

Grossi has discussed the prevalence of romantic love arguments in the rhetoric of same-sex marriage
advocates in: Renata Grossi, The meaning of love in the debate for legal recognition of same-sex marriage
in Australia. International Journal of Law in Context 8:4 (2012): 487-505.

!17

oppressive institution for women, but it was also no longer as important to society at large. It is
these transformations that framed the emergent debate around same-sex relationship recognition in
Australia.

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!18

!
!
Chapter Two

!
Same-sex Marriage in the 70s

!
!
!
This chapter will explore the early origins of same-sex marriage as an issue within the Australian
lesbian and gay community. Since as early as the 1930s, unsanctioned same-sex marriages have
been enacted by lesbian and gay couples as a form of satire, a method of protest and as a personal
demonstration of commitment. The Australian lesbian and gay movement was effectively launched
in September 1970 with the establishment of the gay rights organisation Campaign Against Moral
Persecution (CAMP).82 CAMP encompassed a broad range of political opinions, but its primary aim
was the promotion of a more positive view of homosexuality in society.83 By 1973, more radical
and leftist gay liberation organisations had emerged and were dominating the homosexual political
scene.84 These groups rejected same-sex marriage as a goal, instead seeing heterosexual institutions
like marriage and the nuclear family as a means of oppression. Nonetheless, throughout this period
individuals advocated for same-sex marriage and an embrace of marriage-like monogamous
relationships. Gay churches emerged, performing and advocating for unrecognised forms of
marriage. Those performing and advocating same-sex marriages were marginal within the emergent
gay community, but they nonetheless helped provoke a central debate in the gay press around the
nature of same-sex intimacy and relationships.

!
!
!
!
!
82

Willett, Living Out Loud, 33.

83

Ibid., 45.

84

Ibid., 53-91.

!19

Weddings of Depravity

!
Before the emergence of public lesbian and gay communities in Australia, there was a thriving
underground lesbian and gay scene largely known as the camp scene. Camp culture centred
around private parties and bars in Australias urban centres, in particular Sydney, from about the
1920s.85 As Robert French has discussed, the camp scene involved specific rites and rituals, one of
which was the camp marriage.86 In December 1931 the sensationalist, conservative Sydney tabloid
the Arrow ran a cover story exposing the organised male depravity of the perverts of Sydney.87
The paper sent an unnamed reporter to a gay drag show in the western suburbs, where he witnessed
the solemn coronation of a Queen of perverts.88 But worse still was a Marriage ceremony
of one of these unfortunate creatures with another of his kind.89 This drag imitation of a traditional
institution was, according to the Arrow, a shocking example of the depravity of homosexuals. And
yet, admitted the reporter, one of these cross-dressers was a ravishing blonde, another sported a
corsage that was a blaze of brilliants.90 This rare insight into camp culture shows a satirical
glorification of the heterosexual institution of marriage, but one that is seemingly still reverent
towards its glamour and rituals.

!
After the Second World War the press began discussing homosexuality openly and more often, with
sensationalist papers like the Truth publishing more stories of lesbian and gay scandal.91 In October
1949 the Truth in Melbourne ran an expos of another drag wedding, this time in a RSL hall in
Collingwood.92 According to the article, a 19 year old man dressed as a bride married another man
dressed as a groom. The ceremony had all the common tropes of a typical wedding, complete with
vows, walking down the aisle and the tossing of the bouquet. The wedding was, however, deemed

85

Robert French, Camping by a Billabong (Sydney: Blackwattle Press, 1993), 85-89; Reynolds, From Camp
to Queer, 6.
86

French, Camping by a Billabong, 89, 110; Wotherspoon has detailed much of the history of camp culture
in Sydney in Garry Wotherspoon, City of the Plain (Sydney: Hale & Iremonger, 1991).
87

Organised Male Depravity, The Arrow, 23 December 1931, 1, 4.

88

Ibid.

89

Ibid.

90

Ibid.

91

French, Camping by a Billabong, 99-109.

92

Wedding of a Painted Doll Was So Naice, The Melbourne Truth, 8 October 1949, 7.

!20

to be a degrading travesty and a sacrilegious ceremony.93 Private photographs archived by the

ALGA document camp weddings taking place throughout the 60s and 70s.94 These typically
consisted of a ceremony between two men, at least one in drag, often flanked by drag bridesmaids.
Given the underground nature of these ceremonies, we dont know exactly how often they occurred,
nor whether they were primarily satirical or if they were also serious demonstrations of commitment
between couples. Likely, they were a combination of both adopting the paradigm of marriage
while also subverting it. It was common, as Baird notes, long before gay liberation for same-sex
couples to characterise and live their relationships as marriages.95 As Willett writes, same-sex
couples could embody all the romantic paraphernalia of mainstream relationships.96 One such
example was Paddy and Robbie Byrnes, a lesbian couple who married themselves in 1956 in a
private and intimate ceremony in a church.97

!
In the United States, when a public lesbian and gay consciousness first started to emerge, same-sex
marriage was a key area of interest. Predating gay liberation, the more moderate homophile
movement emerged in the 1950s in America seeking education and research on homosexuality.98
They were centred around two magazines, One and Ladder.99 A 1959 article in One grappled with
the idea of achieving in the homosexual marriage the fusion of sex and love found in a
heterosexual marriage concluding it was possible but difficult.100 In 1963 the cover of One

93

Ibid.

94

See for example: Claudias Wedding, Lyds Wedding, Father Brown Wedding, (slides, c.1965-1975), The
Brian Cook Collection, Album 1, ALGA, South Yarra.
95

Barbara Baird, Kerryn and Jackie: Thinking Historically about Lesbian Marriages. Australian Historical
Studies 36:126 (1997): 264; See for example the lesbian couple depicted in: And Now Women Are Holding
Orgies, The Arrow, 8 January 1932, 5.
96

Willett, Living Out Loud, 8.

97

Paddy Byrnes writes: On 17 March 1956 we became as one in a wee church, after lighting two candles
and exchanging wedding rings inscribed Keep Faith, as recounted in Willett, Living Out Loud 8-9; Paddy
Byrnes and Robbie Byrnes, La Vie en Rose 1956 (Our Song, Our Year), in eds. Margaret Bradstock and
Louise Wakeling, Words From the Same Heart (London: Hale and Iremonger, 1987), 26.
98

Melissa M Wilcox, Of Markets and Missions: The Early History of the Universal Fellowship of
Metropolitan Community Churches. Religion and American Culture: A Journal of Interpretation 11:1
(2001): 94.
99

One was the magazine of the male homophile organisation the Mattachine Society, while Ladder was the
magazine of the female homophile organisation the Daughters of Bilitis.
100

Jim Egan, Homosexual Marriage Fact or Fancy?, One, 7:12, 1959, 6.

!21

declared: Lets Push Homophile Marriage.101 The article argued that gay men should embrace
long-term monogamous relationships, as a means to social acceptance: It seems to me that when
society finally accepts homophiles as a valid minority with minority rights, it is going first of all to
accept the married homophiles.102 Debate took place in the pages of Ladder about the desirability
and practicality of lesbian marriages.103 A 1958 article centred on the notion of romantic,
monogamous love, arguing that homosexual marriage was possible if you love enough.104 The
homophile discussion of marriage was not directly advocating for legal recognition of same-sex
marriage, instead these articles used the term marriage to discuss long-term monogamous
relationships for gays and lesbians. Marriage, moreover, aligned with what Wilcox has described as
the central normalising message of the homophile movement.105 Notably, Australia had no
equivalent of the homophile movement in the 1950s.106

!
Some of the first American protests for lesbian and gay rights employed same-sex marriages as a
form of protest. In 1968, a year before the seminal Stonewall riots, performance artist Yayoi
Kusama staged what she claimed was the first ever homosexual marriage in the United States.107 In
1971 several same-sex couples launched court challenges for legal recognition of marriage
certificates which had been granted to them by local clerks.108 One of these couples, Jack Baker and
Michael McConnell, had their union blessed by Methodist Reverend Roger Lynn.109 The legal
challenges failed and Lynn was expelled from the Methodist Church, but Baker and McConnell
received significant publicity in the mainstream press.110 Openly gay Los Angeles Reverend Troy
Perry had been expelled from the Church of God for his homosexuality, and in 1968 founded the
Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) by placing an advertisement in the gay magazine the
101

Randy Lloyd, Lets Push Homophile Marriage, One, XI:6, June 1963, 5-10.

102

Ibid., 9.

103

Gene Damon, Lesbian Marriage, Ladder, 2:11, August 1958, 12-13; Martha Shelley, On Marriage,
Ladder, 13:1/2, October 1968, 46-47.
104

Gene Damon, Lesbian Marriage, Ladder, 2:11, August 1958, 12-13.

105

Wilcox, Of Markets and Missions, 95.

106

French, 109.

107 Altman,

The End of the Homosexual?, 193.

108

Elise Chenier, Gay Marriage, 1970s Style. The Gay and Lesbian Review Worldwide 20:2 (2013): 19.

109

Ibid., 20.

110

Ibid., 19.

!22

Advocate.111 The MCC was initially a small gathering in Perrys house, but its gay-friendly
preaching found an audience and by 1971 they had their own church.112 Perry began blessing samesex marriages, and in 1972 went to court arguing that because Californian law did not explicitly
state that a married couple must be of the opposite sex, these marriages were legal.113 This
challenge failed, and afterwards Perry and the MCC began referring to the same-sex marriages they
performed as Holy Unions. Despite their failure, these court cases challenged the popular image of
gays and lesbians as sexually perverted, and used marriage to assert the legitimacy of same-sex
relationships.114

!
!
Camp Marriage Gets Serious

!
Australia did not see the same legal challenges as the US, but the early 1970s did see some protests
centred around same-sex marriage, most notably by a Perth Congregational minister. In May 1973 it
was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald that Reverend Mario Schoenmaker had conducted a
marriage ceremony for two lesbians.115 This marriage was performed at a Perth CAMP clubhouse.
Schoenmaker told the Herald that this was a properly sanctioned church marriage, which he had
performed as part of a personal protest against condemnation by the Church and State of
homosexuals.116 In the same month he married a male same-sex couple and, according to The Age,
several members of his congregation expressed horror at his actions.117 This protest by a
progressive, heterosexual Christian minister expressed an understanding of same-sex intimacy that
was at odds with the increasingly radical and feminist assertions of gay liberation. Schoenmaker
articulated this understanding in an interview in the first issue of the national gay newspaper
Stallion.118 Schoenmaker rejected the old concept as expounded in the Old Testament that
111

Wilcox, Of Markets and Missions, 84-5; Reverend Here to See Members of his Flock, The Sydney
Morning Herald, 1 January, 1976.
112

Wilcox, Of Markets and Missions, 84-6.

113

Chenier, Gay Marriage, 1970s Style, 20.

114

Ibid.

115

Lesbians Married, The Sydney Morning Herald, 8 May 1973, 38.

116

Ibid.

117

Strife over homosexual marriages, The Age, 14 May 1973, 3.

118

Rev Shoenmaker Speaks Frankly, Stallion, 1:1, May 1973, 8.

!23

marriage was primarily for procreation: Marriage to me is more than just to procreate children.119
Asked if same-sex marriages could survive in a homophobic society, Schoenmaker responded: No
problem about it.120 If marriages are based on sex, its hard; if it is based on a higher concept such
as understanding each other and with genuine affection it can survive.121 Schoenmaker asserted
that same-sex love was equivalent to heterosexual love, and argued it was essential to Christianity
to accept this. This normalising attitude reflected that of Professor RG Tanner, who despite some
personal uncertainty about the morality of homosexuality, had argued in 1970 that the NSW
Anglican Church should consider blessing same-sex unions.122

!
Discussions around same-sex marriage formed part of a debate in the emergent Australian gay press
around the nature of same-sex relationships, and the practicality and desirability of marriage-like
unions. In a 1971 issue of CAMP Ink, the official journal of CAMP and Australias first gay
magazine, a gay man giving his name as Gerard wrote an emotional letter to the editor.123 Gerard
bemoaned the shallowness of beat sex and said he wanted more: to get married and have a
relationship based on love.124 A few months later, a sharp response came from a letter by the
pseudonymous PMD.125 He derided Gerards desires as a naive fantasy: the number of homosexual
marriages are few indeed, and are inherently unstable.126 Partially this was because of the
insidious pressure exerted by society in a thousand ways. But, according to PMD, gays did not
seem to end up solitary in the end entirely because of social attitudes there was, instead,
something about the homosexual condition that did not lend itself to monogamy.127 Similarly, two
months after Schoenmakers 1973 interview in Stallion, an article ran in the paper by Marcus Crane
called Why Homosexual Marriages Fail.128 The piece placed the average length of the camp
marriage at just six months, yet remained optimistic they were possible. It argued that social
119

Ibid.

120

Ibid.

121

Ibid.

122

Move for marriage of homosexuals, The Sydney Morning Herald, 16 April 1970, 6.

123

CAMP Ink, 1:7, May 1971, 14-15.

124

Ibid.

125

CAMP Ink, 1:10, August 1971, 17.

126

Ibid.

127

Ibid.

128

Marcus Crane, Why Homosexual Marriages Fail, Stallion, 1:3-7, July 1973, 9.

!24

attitudes were a mixed blessing: although same-sex couples didnt face the same social and
institutional pressures to stay together, this also meant couples werent forced to stay together
longer than they should.129

!
A 1973 satirical piece in CAMP Ink wrote of the Twilight world of the heterosexual in the style of
a tabloid investigating homosexual sub-cultures.130 Straight couples, it wrote, engage in the bizarre
form of practice of marriage, which is artificial and restrictive and inevitably leads to
dishonesty.131 A letter in response to the satire wrote of the discrimination encountered by an
unmarried individual attempting to get a home loan from a South Australian bank.132 The
conclusion of this letter by WJ Lowes was not to seek inclusion in marriage but to abolish it: Well
have to destroy the heterosexual marriage first. Then who will they lend their moth-eaten money
to?133 Like Shoenmaker, those coming from a heterosexual viewpoint often argued for the
equalisation of straight and same-sex couples through access to marriage. In an unusual Stallion
article, a married heterosexual woman named Patricia Parker wrote: I think that one of the reasons
that homosexuality is still oppressed is because relationships dont usually last very long.134 To
Parker, the adoption of stable, marriage-like relationships amongst same-sex couples was the only
means by which homosexuals would achieve social acceptance.135 Gay Christian groups formed,
sometimes pushing for same-sex marriage. One such group was Cross+Section, an umbrella
organisation of gay Christians from multiple denominations. In 1974 Sydneys Anglican Synod
adopted a report on homosexuality that affirmed the importance of exclusively heterosexual
marriage as a necessary social unity.136 As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, Cross+Section
responded by releasing a report that condemned this as narrow-minded and unjust and

129

Ibid.

130

The Twilight World of the Heterosexual, CAMP Ink, 3:2, 1973, 7.

131

Ibid.

132

CAMP Ink, 3:2, 1973, 7.

133

Ibid.

134

Patricia Parker, Viewpoint: Gay Relationships, Stallion, 1:3-7, July 1973, 9.

135

Ibid.

136 Alan

Gill, Homosexual Christians in Plea on Laws, The Sydney Morning Herald, 30 April 1974, 14.

!25

recommended not just the decriminalisation of homosexuality, but also the legal recognition of
same-sex marriages.137

!
Yet to many within the gay community, the normalisation of same-sex relationships was seen as
inherently undesirable. A 1974 Stallion article responded directly to the calls for the performance
and celebration of marriages by same-sex couples.138 The piece declared that these couples werent
actually married. Instead, marriage was a peculiarly heterosexual institution aimed at stabilising a
relationship between a man and a woman and was irrelevant to the needs of gay people.139 An
article in Gayzette, the successor to Stallion, entitled I Live Alone and Like It echoed these
arguments from a more personal viewpoint.140 The author condemned what he saw as an
overwhelming social pressure on both straight and gay individuals to form long-term monogamous
relationships.141 He wrote: The concept of nesting, staying fixed, settling down, is repressive of the
Gay nature.142 Although it may work for some, the gay community must give up the
[heterosexual] notion that being Gay is simply a search for a same-gender equivalent to
[heterosexual] marriage.143 Nonetheless, rejection of marriage-like relationships was not shared by
all, and a month later Gayzette ran a passionate response by Joe Foster.144 Foster argued that gays
and lesbians were not naturally predisposed to promiscuity. On the nature of marriage, Foster
wrote:

!
Marriage is not an institution but a lasting love commitment of persons. Of course, as such,
its as valid for gays as for [heterosexuals]. Marriage is not to enjoy love more or sex less,
but to enjoy life, and therefore both, more.145

!
137

Ibid.

138

John Breslin, With This Ring?, Stallion, 15, August 1974, 16-17.

139

Ibid.

140

Jim Kepner, I Live Alone and Like It, Gayzette, 16, 5 September 1974, 10-12.

141

Ibid.

142

Ibid., 11.

143

Ibid., 12.

144

Joe Foster, Live Alone and Like It, Gayzette, 20, 31 October 1974, 9-10.

145

Ibid., 10.

!26

This view of marriage derived from the notion of romantic love that marriage is primarily a
union between individuals designed to signify love and commitment. According to Foster, the antimarriage stance of a recent ilk of gay activists was an overreaction, stemming from an attempt to
avoid reverting to conservatism.146

!
From 1972 the lesbian and gay rights movement in Australia had began to radicalise, and a new
generation of activists overwhelmingly rejected the notion of same-sex marriage. As Reynolds has
documented, lesbian and gay political leaders came to see homosexuality as fundamentally different
from heterosexuality.147 The movement shifted from simply gaining heterosexual rights towards a
critical and revolutionary interrogation of heterosexual society.148 Lesbian and gay revolutionaries
left CAMP for groups like Gay Liberation and the Radical Lesbian movement, which were founded
on radical difference and on finding new lesbian and gay subjectivities.149 They fundamentally
rejected the notion of same-sex marriage and marriage-like relationships. The fourth issue of the
Melbourne Gay Liberation Newsletter in 1973 ran The Radicalesbian Manifesto, which was
strident in its rejection of marriage:

!
We refuse to regard ourselves as free while women are oppressed. We recognise the
institutions which oppress us, and will not set up copies of marriage, of role playing, of
power dominance.150

!
The Radical Lesbian movement saw homosexual women as an existential danger to heterosexual
society by their nature threatening the institutions of monogamy and the nuclear family,
institutions which are the basis and the training schools of the patriarchy.151 Hostility to the nuclear
family was interlinked with a hostility to marriage: both were forms of patriarchy and therefore
means of repression.

!
146

Ibid.

147

Reynolds, From Camp to Queer, 63-4.

148

Ibid., 64-65.

149

Ibid.

150

The Radicalesbian Manifesto, Melbourne Gay Liberation Newsletter, 4, September 1973, 2.

151

Ibid.

!27

Similarly, most Gay Liberation activists saw heterosexual society as the source of prejudice and
discrimination, and saw the reformist approach of many CAMP members as inadequate.152 They
sought a complete transformation of society and looked for solidarity with other oppressed groups,
and were especially influenced by radical feminism. The first years of Gay Liberation and Radical
Feminism were shaped by texts such as Dennis Altmans Homosexual: Oppression and Liberation,
and Germaine Greers The Female Eunuch.153 Altman saw militant confrontation, in the form of
directly challenging the individuals and institutions that oppressed homosexuals, as the movements
future.154 Gay Liberation saw gender and sexual roles as the product of a repressive society, with the
abolition of gender as the ultimate goal.155 A 1972 article entitled Gay is Good that ran in the
University of Melbournes student magazine Farrago, as part of a feature section on gay liberation,
encapsulates this attitude.156 Radical lesbians and gays were in revolt against the sex role structure
and the nuclear family structure to gay liberationists, marriage was just another one of the
citadels of repression.157 As Willett notes, this goal moderated over time to form a countercultural desire for acceptance of homosexuality as a legitimate but alternative lifestyle.158 Reynolds
in his study of lesbian and gay identity in Australia has noted how one of Sydney Gay Liberations
primary targets was monogamous heterosexuality.159 Yet, he writes, liberationists was opposed to
the normativity of monogamy, not necessarily the practice.160 While admitting couples could live
together happily, Sydney Gay Liberation primarily objected to the cultural idealisation of finding
and settling down with one partner.161 Nonetheless, an idealisation of monogamy formed the basis
by which new homosexual churches began performing same-sex unions.

!
!
!
152

Willett, Living Out Loud, 57.

153

Ibid., 56; Reynolds, From Camp to Queer, 72-3.

154

Willett, Living Out Loud, 57-8.

155

Ibid., 59.

156

Martha Shelley, Gay is Good, Farrago, 15 September 1972, 18.

157

Ibid.

158

Willett, Living Out Loud, 59.

159

Reynolds, From Camp to Queer, 130.

160

Ibid.

161

Ibid.

!28

The Gay Congregations

!
Despite the radical turn of gay liberation, there were small numbers of gay Christians who
organised their own denominations, and who were open in advocating and practicing forms of
same-sex marriage. There has not yet been a historical account written of the MCC or Christs
Community Church (CCC) in Australia. Gay Christian organisations emerged organically in several
Australian capital cities in the first few years of the 1970s, in some cases emerging from religious
groups within CAMP. What seems to be the first of these organisations was established in
Melbourne in October 1973 under Pastor John Willis, claiming inspiration from Troy Perrys book
The Lord Is My Shepherd and He Knows Im Gay.162 It was quickly joined by groups in other
capital cities, whose efforts were bolstered by a visit from Perry to Australia in 1974.163 By then the
MCC claimed to have 63 congregations across the US, and it sought expansion into other
countries.164 In 1975 American MCC Reverend Lee Carlton was named the bishop and co-ordinator
of the MCC in Australia, and the groups were formally affiliated and renamed as the Metropolitan
Community Church in Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney.165

!
When Carlton arrived in Australia he immediately began performing ceremonies between same-sex
couples. In Darlinghurst at the Jewish Times Building, Carlton married two gay men, Stephen
Watson and Timothy James Rootsey.166 Campaign, a national gay newspaper then still in its infancy,
described this as a Camp Wedding, and concluded that the couple have convinced us that they
take the matter seriously.167 The mainstream papers attention was caught by the novelty of a gay
minister performing gay weddings. In a prominent profile in The Age, Carlton discussed his own
same-sex marriage which hed entered into in 1973 and his belief that homosexuality should be
more socially respected.168 Lesbians and gays were, according to Carlton, the last minority at

162

History Christs Community Church, Papers of John Willis, Box 1: Folder 4, ALGA, South Yarra.

163

History of Christs Community Church in Melbourne, Papers of John Willis, Box 1: Folder 4, ALGA,
South Yarra. Note: This is a different document from Footnote 160.
164

MCC sets its sights overseas, Gayzette, 19 September 1974, 17, 6.

165

Ibid.; Alan Gill, American to Head Homosexual Sect, Sydney Morning Herald, 26 March 1975;
History of Christs Community Church in Melbourne, Papers of John Willis, ALGA.
166

Camp Wedding, Campaign, 4, December 1975, 1.

167

Ibid.

168

Were the last minority, says gay minister, The Age, 8 May 1975, 3.

!29

whom people can laugh and get away with it.169 To Carlton, therefore, the blessings of Holy
Unions played an important role in legitimising the relationships of homosexual couples. Speaking
with Campaign, Carlton bragged that of the 300 marriages he had performed only one couple had
separated, something few ministers could claim.170 The MCC took its Holy Unions seriously,
requiring couples to have been together for one year and to undergo counselling sessions before it
would agree to perform a ceremony.171

!
The performing of Holy Unions formed part of a relatively traditionalist Christian defence of
homosexuality, centred on normalisation, presented by the MCC and its affiliates in Australia. In
1974 in the third edition of MCC Adelaides newsletter Gay Credo, editor Bill Beaumont wrote an
editorial announcing his recent ceremony:

!
It gives me great joy to tell in this issue of the Service of Holy Union between my lover,
Robert, and me. This is the first Service of Union in the Church in Adelaide and, so far as I
know, in Australia.172

!
Beaumont characterised the union as not the start of something but a confirmation and celebration
of a firm, loving and immensely happy relationship.173 In a mission statement for his newsletter,
Beaumont decried the lack of fiction, poetry or art concerning gay love in the mainstream gay
papers according to Beaumont, relationships were portrayed as either sex or ideology in a sign
of immaturity within the gay movement.174 He believed the religious front would take over from
gay liberation and bring social acceptance of homosexuality.175 In a 1975 edition of Outreach, a
MCC journal that encompassed Australia and New Zealand, MCC Reverend Richard Vincent
argued against the promiscuity of the gay community.176 Vincent argued that marriage-like
169

Ibid.

170

Camp Wedding, Campaign, 4, December 1975, 1.

171

Camp Wedding, Campaign, 4, December 1975, 1; More Than Desire Makes a Gay marriage,
Campaign, 36, September 1978, 50.
172

Gay Credo, 2:3, November/December 1974, 2.

173

Ibid.

174

Ibid., 14-15.

175

Gay Credo, 1:2, October 1974.

176

Richard Vincent, Relationships Part Two, Outreach, 2:5, November 1975, 4.

!30

monogamous relationships were the more perfect way to express a relationship and were
practically achievable for same-sex couples.177 There was, nonetheless, some dissent and debate
towards this view within the MCC one 1976 article in Outreach dismissed marriage as a longdefunct institution and argued that homosexuals were uniquely placed to make non-monogamous
relationships work.178

!
In 1976 the Melbourne chapter split with the MCC and reformed itself as Christs Community
Church under John Willis.179 In 1977 Willis was authorised to officiate marriages between
heterosexual couples, and by 1978 the CCC was a registered denomination.180 The MCC found this
process more difficult: in 1983 an application to be authorised as a marriage celebrant by Sydney
MCC Reverend JN Dykes was rejected by the NSW Attorney Generals department.181 The
department justified this on the grounds that the church, although open to heterosexuals, seems to
be directed almost exclusively to homosexuals and therefore did not have a reasonable need for a
license.182 Like the MCC, the CCC performed Holy Unions between same-sex couples, although
they sometimes referred to them as Covenants of Love. Those taking part were given a Rite of
Holy Union, near identical to a marriage certificate, that declared a couple to be scripturally
united in Holy Union.183 Willis Service of Holy Union details a highly religious ceremony that
opened with a payer asking for gods blessing over a sacred ceremony that would sanctify and
seal the bonds of [the couples] deep relationship.184 The couple in these ceremonies said their

177

Ibid.

178

With Downcast Gays: Do You Oppress Yourself?, Outreach, March 1976, 4, 11.

179

History of Christs Community Church in Melbourne, Papers of John Willis, Box 1: Folder 4, ALGA,
South Yarra; In 1981 the CCC opened a new church in Sydney, conducting their first services in a house
owned by the Quaker movement in Surry Hills: Gay group forms rebel church, The Telegraph, 25 July
1981.
180

Letter from Federal Attorney-Generals Department to John Willis, 31 August 1977, Papers of John
Willis, Box 1: Folder 7, ALGA, South Yarra.
181

Letter from Federal Attorney-Generals Department to JN Dykes, 13 December 1983, Metropolitan

Community Church of Sydney File, ALGA, South Yarra.
182

Ibid.

183

Copies of these CCC certificates are held at the ALGA: The Rite of Holy Union, Certificate, Papers of
John Willis, Box 1: Folder 6, ALGA, South Yarra.
184

Service of Holy Union, Papers of John Willis, Box 1: Folder 2, ALGA, South Yarra.

!31

vows, exchanged rings and finished with the taking of communion. Through this, according to
Willis, the two individuals would be publicly accepted as a united couple.185

!
These highly ritualised ceremonies asserted a normality and legitimacy for same-sex relationships
that was previously unheard of in Australia. They adopted the tropes and language of traditional
weddings to assert to Australian society that same-sex monogamous relationships could be
essentially identical to heterosexual relationships. They also represented an idealisation and
romanticisation of marriage and monogamous love that aligned with the views of many
traditionalists. As Chenier has written of American campaigners during the 1970s, asserting the
viability of same-sex marriages undermined dominant medical and cultural characterisations of
homosexuality as perverted and deviant.186 The ceremonies performed by the MCC and CCC were
likely an important source of legitimacy for individuals struggling for understanding in their
communities and families. One account of a 1975 Adelaide ceremony wrote that the happiness of
the celebration was intensified by the involvement of parents, which is often sadly lacking on such
occasions.187 Like the camp weddings before them, these ceremonies simultaneously affirmed and
subverted the institution of marriage. More importantly, they represented a desire by a number of
same-sex couples for social (and religious) sanctification of their relationships. Those advocating
and performing same-sex marriages saw marriage as a productive social institution, and a route to
social normalisation and legitimacy for their relationships. This positive view of marriage mirrors
the arguments eventually put forward by same-sex marriage advocates in the 2000s.

!
Nonetheless, those advocating same-sex marriage and taking part in these ceremonies were few in
number, and were a marginal element in emerging homosexual communities.188 The lesbian and gay
political scene was largely uninterested in marriage, and most radical activists were openly hostile.
As the radical demands of the 1970s had moderated by the 1980s, the political focus shifted towards
discrimination, rights and community.189 Law reform and the AIDS crisis dominated the activities

185

Ibid.

186

Chenier, Gay Marriage, 1970s Style, 20.

187

Summary of Adelaide, Gay Credo, 2:3, March 1975, 4.

188 According

to the CCCs own historical timeline, likely written by John Willis, as of December 1977 the
MCC and CCC had a combined membership of just 120 people across Australia: History of Christs
Community Church in Melbourne, Papers of John Willis, Box 1: Folder 4, ALGA, South Yarra.
189

Willett, Living Out Loud, 144-145.

!32

of lesbian and gay activists and worked to united the homosexual political scene.190 It wasnt until
the mid-1990s, as the AIDs crisis ebbed and decriminalisation was achieved, that same-sex
marriage reemerged as a potent and divisive political issue.

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
190

Ibid., 147.

!33

!
!
Chapter Three

2004: The Turning Point

!
!

A May 1989 issue of OutRage, the national monthly news magazine that succeeded the liberation
magazine Gay Community News, welcomed the arrival of same-sex marriage to the Australian
political agenda with an article entitled Making It Legal.191 That year, Denmark became the first
nation to offer a system of partner registration for same-sex couples, which granted lesbian and gay
couples many of the rights of marriage.192 In response, George Daniel wrote that same-sex marriage
had returned after 16 centuries in the closet.193 He associated the suppression of same-sex
marriage with the rise of Christianity, and its return with the reality of the AIDS crisis. Same-sex
marriage was a crucial gay civil rights issue, wrote Daniel, that was now considered by many
gay activists as essential to our physical survival in the face of AIDS.194 To Daniel, the emergence
of legal and social acceptance of gay relationships meant a necessary remaking of the institution of
marriage in Christianity and in broader society. When a Copenhagen Mayor performed the first
partnership ceremony under the Danish legislation, it made headlines internationally and in
Australia.195 These ceremonies were presented and reported in the mainstream and the lesbian and
gay press as the worlds first legally performed homosexual marriages, although the law did not
use the term.196 Over the next two decades, same-sex marriage grew to become one of the most
dominant and divisive homosexual rights issue in Australia and abroad.

!
191

George Daniel, Making It Legal, OutRage, 72, May 1989, 22.

192

The Danish Registered Partnership Act 1989, Danish Parliament, available from http://users.cybercity.dk/
~dko12530/s2.htm [3 October 2014].
193

Daniel, Making It Legal, OutRage, 72, May 1989, 22.

194

Ibid., 23.

195

World First Claimed As Mayor Marries Homosexual Couple, The Sydney Morning Herald (Reprinted
from The New York Times and The Independent), 3 October 1989, 9; Worlds First Modern, Legal Gay
Marriage, The Melbourne Star Observer, 20 October 1989, 7.
196

Ibid.

!34

As detailed by Willett and Altman, the 1980s lesbian and gay political scene was dominated by the
HIV/AIDS crisis and the decriminalisation of male homosexual sex acts.197 During this time, as
Willett writes, the homosexual rights agenda widened considerably.198 Although marginal, the
concept of homosexual marriage was never entirely absent from the mainstream press. A 1979
article in the Melbourne Truth told the story of a lesbian couples Marriage Without a Man.199 A
large photo showed the couple, Cheryl and Sandra, holding up a marriage certificate that they saw
as the real thing. Sandra told the paper: We are normal human beings and we felt we deserved
the right to have a wedding as much as anyone else.200 The couple spoke in detail of the close bond
they shared, and their status as a family: We are providing my children with a happy, loving home
life.201 Another couple, Kim Mason and Lyndell Hockley, were married in front of 80 friends and
relatives at an Elwood home, supposedly prompting a legal war in Melbourne and a comment
from the Federal Attorney-General.202 These couples, coming from outside the lesbian and gay
rights movement, sought marriage as a means to social and cultural acceptance of their
relationships. A prominent case involving an Australian Anthony Sullivan attempting to have his
marriage to an American recognised by US immigration officials made headlines in mainstream
papers and the gay press for over a decade from 1975.203 Sullivans repeated struggles to gain

197

Willett, Living Out Loud, 145-95; Altman, The End of the Homosexual?, 106-126.

198

Willett, Living Out Loud, 226.

199

Brian Blackwell, Lovebirds Cheryl and Sandra reveal Marriage Without a Man, The Melbourne
Truth, 8 September 1979, 20.
200

Ibid.

201

Ibid.

202

Brian Blackwell, Wrangle over wed lesbians, The Melbourne Truth, 25 August 1979, 2, 6; No
change to wed laws, The Sun (Melbourne), 21 August 1979.
203 Anthony

Sullivan and partner Richard Adams were granted a marriage certificate by a county clerk in
Boulder, Colorado after the clerk ruled the states marriage laws did not specify gender. The two were
married by the MCC and sought permanent residency for Sullivan in the US. Reportedly, an immigration
official ordered Sullivan to leave America because the couple failed to establish that a bona fida marital
relationship can exist between two faggots. The Immigration Department later rescinded the wording, but
the order was upheld. See Homosexual Marriages?, CAMP Ink, 38, September 1976, 20; US Rebuffs
Aussie, Campaign, 7, March 1976, 3; Campaign, 42, April 1979, 9; Same sex, no wed, hes out!, The Sun
(Melbourne), 19 December 1979, 21; Marriage not valid, The Age, 19 December 1979; Gay Australian
fights US order to deport him, The Australian, 23 April 1980; Aussie gay in migration row, The News
(Perth), 23 April 1980; After losing their appeal, in 1984 Australian authorities denied permission for Adams
to enter Australia: Australia rejects gay spouse, The Australian, 21 Dec 1984; US orders out gay
Australian, The Sun, 21 November 1985.

!35

spousal immigration status and stay in America highlighted the precariousness of having no
government recognition for same-sex relationships.

!
Sustained advocacy emerged in Australia for same-sex marriage initially not from the gay press but
through journalism in major progressive papers such as The Age in Melbourne. Homosexual
couples, in particular lesbian couples with children, became the face of media coverage that
advocated for same-sex marriage recognition. These stories formed part of a media discourse in the
90s about the changing face of the Australian family. The traditional nuclear family, reported The
Age in 1992, was giving way to a kaleidoscope of family units, including de facto relationships
and lesbian and gay families.204 The politicisation of family, and fear of the decline of marriage,
made same-sex relationship recognition a political battleground Liberal MPs such as Kevin
Andrews and Jocelyn Newman argued government policy must promote an ideal notion of the
heterosexual nuclear family.205 A 1995 article by Rachel Gibson profiled a lesbian couple with two
children.206 The story emphasised the normality of their family, of whom the most unconventional
thing about them is that they are not married, and noted that a hospital had refused to recognise the
couple as next of kin.207

!
Similar profiles appeared by Virginia Trioli and Caroline Overington that detailed male and female
same-sex couples who had performed their own unrecognised marriage ceremonies.208 Trioli wrote
of couple Juliana and Jane: They want the blessing and good wishes a society bestows on a couple
in love.209 Overington profiled a couple both desirous of cultural recognition for their union and
concerned about the practical medical implications of not having full legal recognition.210 A 1996
204 Anne

Crawford, The changing face of families, The Sunday Age, 12 July 1992, 4; See also: Stuart
Willamson and Melissa Fraser, New definitions of family, The Age, 23 May 1994, 27; Sally Heath,
Intimate families: The Gays, The Age, 7 March 1994, 11; Neil Brown, Churches must preserve the ideal
of the family, The Sydney Morning Herald, 22 May 1995, 13.
205

Jane Cafarella, What does a family mean?, The Age, 9 December 1994, 22; Karen Middleton, Ideal
family values fall foul of Young Libs, The Age, 22 January 1994, 11.
206

Rachel Gibson, Two mothers and a family a way of life, The Age, 7 January 1995, 3.

207

Ibid.

208

Virginia Trioli, When gay lovers are the marrying kind, The Age, 14 August 1995, 11; Caroline
Overington, Why cant they marry? The Age, 26 April 1997, 3.
209

Virginia Trioli, When gay lovers are the marrying kind, The Age, 14 August 1995, 11.

210

Caroline Overington, Why cant they marry?, The Age, 26 April 1997, 3.

!36

article in the Herald told the story of a Sydney MCC Holy Union ceremony in a Waterloo
church.211 In matching tails, the couple took mutual vows which will unite them in holy union in
front of friends and family.212 These stories, predominantly by heterosexual female authors, focused
on the commonalities between straight and same-sex relationships, and were indicative of a cultural
shift in the public perception of homosexuality. The journalists used marriage as a framework
through which to convey the lack of legal rights and social respectability that same-sex couples
faced. This framework was understandable to a straight audience familiar with the social and legal
nature of marriage.

!
Nonetheless, many in the lesbian and gay community objected to the renewed interest in marriage.
Prominent feminist Eva Cox in two 1993 columns for short-lived lesbian magazine Burn lamented
the emergent interest in marriage amongst the lesbian and gay community.213 Cox described
marriage as a patriarchal institution designed originally to move further control of women from her
father to her husband.214 Contemporary marriage was a mess of meaningless rituals and
obligations and Cox saw potential conflict between feminists and those activists advocating samesex marriage.215 Cox asked: Why try to reproduce this absurd concept in same-sex
relationships?216 Some, like Uniting Church Reverend Harry Herbert, argued that the use of the
term marriage was unnecessarily divisive, and problematised achieving legal equality for same-sex
couples.217 As Altman and Reynolds have detailed, the radical queer political and intellectual
movement that emerged in the 90s was, like gay liberation before it, hostile to gender roles and
traditional social institutions like marriage.218 Discussion of same-sex marriage also provoked
condemnation from many traditionalists: For example, in 1996 conservative Reverend Fred Nile led

211 Ali
212

Gripper, Together, in holy union, The Sydney Morning Herald, 30 January 1996, 11.

Ibid.

213

Antisocial Commentary, Burn, 2, February 1993, 52-3; Antisocial Commentary, Burn, 11, November
1993, 64.
214

Antisocial Commentary, Burn, 2, February 1993, 52-3.

215

Antisocial Commentary, Burn, 11, November 1993, 64.

216

Ibid.

217

Harry Herbert, The Sydney Morning Herald, 7 February 1996, 14.

218 Altman,

The End of the Homosexual?, 127-34; Reynolds, From Camp to Queer, 158-68.

!37

a 200 person March for Marriage through Sydney.219 "You can't have two men or two women
marrying each other, the Bible says they must be a man and a woman, Nile told the Daily
Telegraph.220

!
In 1997 the prominent marriage of Sydney lesbian couple Kerryn Phelps and Jackie Stricker was
emblematic of a changing public discourse surrounding same-sex marriage. Phelps was a general
practitioner and a media commentator, and from 2000 the president of the Australian Medical
Association, while Stricker was a primary school teacher at a prestigious Sydney private school.221
The couple were married by a Rabbi in New York in December 1997, and a month later their story
featured prominently in Sydneys Sunday Telegraph, the national magazine Australian Womens
Weekly and the Australian Broadcasting Corporations (ABC) television program Australian
Story.222 By 2001 the couple had featured on Channel Nines television program This Is Your Life,
and had a prominent biography written about them.223 Historian Barbara Baird has detailed the
extensive and largely sympathetic media coverage the couple received.224 Baird notes that Phelps
and Stricker represent the first and only openly lesbian couple to hold a prominent position in a
mainstream Australian public sphere.225 The couple advocated for lesbian and gay relationship
recognition, and through the confident assertion of their relationship as a marriage they became a
prominent example for the Australian public of what legally sanctioned same-sex marriages may
look like. The couples marriage was also largely welcomed by the mainstream lesbian and gay
press: the Sydney Star Observer celebrated the couples ultimate commitment with a front cover
entitled Just married.226 One year later the Star, previously guarded in its coverage of same-sex

219

News in brief: Nile march for marriage, Sydney Star Observer, 324, 10 October 1996, 10; Martin
Newman, Marriage Marchers Step Up Protest, The Daily Telegraph, 8 October 1996, 15.
220

Martin Newman, Marriage Marchers Step Up Protest, The Daily Telegraph, 8 October 1996, 15.

221

Baird, Kerryn and Jackie, 253-4.

222

Ibid., 253.

223

Ibid., 254.

224

Ibid., 253.

225

Ibid.,

226

Just Married, The Sydney Star Observer, 398, 26 March 1998, 1; As the most read and most prominent
lesbian and gay newspaper in Australia, this chapter will heavily utilise the Sydney Star Observer as a key
barometer and forum for the attitudes of the lesbian and gay community.

!38

marriage, welcomed a proposal from comedian and activist Julie McCrossin to amend the Marriage
Act to include same-sex couples as the Next Step in homosexual law reform.227

!
Meanwhile, the international lesbian and gay rights landscape was shifting. As detailed by
Chauncey, the AIDS crisis and an increase in the number of lesbian couples raising children
what Chauncey terms the lesbian baby boom had brought home to a generation of American
same-sex couples the practical vulnerability of not having legal recognition of their relationships.228
As Chauncey writes, the legal difficulties of same-sex parents and those living with AIDS made
gay people more conscious of the vulnerability of their relationships and the need to secure them,
and made many heterosexuals more sympathetic to the needs and lived realities of their gay friends
and neighbours.229 The lack of a de facto relationship system in the US meant marriage remained
the central legal framework for the allocation and recognition of relationship rights and protections
by the state, and so inclusion in the institution became the target of many lesbian and gay
activists.230 In 1991 legal action was launched by three gay couples in Hawaii, demanding the state
issue them with marriage licences. The Hawaiian Supreme Court ruled in 1993 that the marriage
ban violated the states Equal Rights Amendment.231 The court remanded the case to trial courts for
another six years, by which time the US House of Representatives had passed the Defence of
Marriage Act (DOMA) and Hawaii had passed via referenda a constitutional amendment
prohibiting same-sex marriage.232

!
DOMA, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, defined marriage as only between
partners of the opposite sex, and stated that no US state or territory could be compelled to recognise
a same-sex marriage from any other jurisdiction.233 Despite the setback of DOMA, the marriage
campaign continued in North America on a state level through the judiciary. In 2003 courts in the
227

Next Step: G&L marriage no threat, The Sydney Star Observer, 465, 15 July 1999, 1.

228

Chauncey, Why Marriage?, 93-111.

229

Ibid., 123.

230

Ibid., 121.

231

Ibid., 125.

232

Ibid., 125.

233

Defence of Marriage Act 1996, HR 3396, available from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.

3396.ENR:/ [9 July 2014]

!39

Canadian states of Ontario and British Columbia ruled that restricting marriage to heterosexuals
violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In Europe, meanwhile, legislative action
was the primary vehicle for reform: in 2001 the Netherlands became the first nation to legalise
same-sex marriage, with Belgium following in 2003.234 In the United States, 2004 was a dramatic
and crucial year for the same-sex marriage debate. Cities across the US began issuing marriage
licences, most dramatically by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom in February.235 During the first
month, 4,000 lesbian and gay couples were issued with marriage licences by the city.236 In May,
Massachusetts began to issue same-sex marriage licences to hundreds of couples after its Supreme
Judicial Court ruled marriage restrictions were unconstitutional.237 The lawsuits launched as part of
these cases conceptualised marriage as a civil right, and sought to leverage the anti-discrimination
measures in many state constitutions. Conservative US opposition to same-sex marriage, defined
during the debate over DOMA, rested on a religious understanding of the institution, but also
asserted marriage as primarily a vehicle to facilitate procreation.238 The couples attaining licences in
the US in 2004 were overwhelmingly female same-sex couples and, according to Chauncey, did so
for both practical benefits and the social legitimacy attached to marriage.239

!
!
The Debate Arrives in Australia

!
The legalisation of same-sex marriage in several overseas jurisdictions, in particular Canada, had an
immediate political impact in Australia; the lesbian and gay press covered the issue with a new
sense of interest and urgency. The cover of the Sydney Star Observer greeted legalisation in Ontario
as the Canadian same-sex marriage revolution.240 The article, detailing the North America
marriage wars, saw the divisive public debate stemming from a conflict between the abstract ideal
234

Shaun Wilson, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Identification and Attitudes to Same-Sex
Relationships in Australia and the United States. People and Place 12:4 (2004), 17.
235

Chauncey, Why Marriage?, 137.

236

Ibid.

237

Ibid., 140.

238

Ibid., 148-9.

239

Ibid., 139-44.

240

Marcus ODonnell, Marriage Revolution, The Sydney Star Observer, 687, 6 November 2003, 1, 7.

!40

of marriage and lived marriage as everyday reality.241 In an Australian context, this meant that a
fear of diminishing the ideal of marriage caused the Coalition government led by Prime Minister
John Howard to oppose practical reforms like superannuation rights for same-sex couples.242 The
Star reported the Massachusetts ruling with a banner headline reading: Gay Marriage:
Massachusetts Gets Go-Ahead For Right To Wed.243 The struggle in the US, and a succession of
favourable North American court decision reframed same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue. A Star
recap of 2003 wrote that same-sex marriage emerged seemingly out of nowhere and quickly
became one of the frontline issues in the worldwide push for lesbian and gay equality.244 A
proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage by President George W Bush during
the 2004 election prompted a flurry of activity from US lesbian and gay activists.245

!
In Australia, activists worried that Howard would attempt to use same-sex marriage as a wedge
issue. Prominent Tasmanian lesbian and gay law reform activist Rodney Croome warned that samesex marriage would unite conservatives and hopelessly divide the ALP (Australian Labor Party)
and the queer community.246 Croome predicted the coming marriage debate would be prompted by
Australian same-sex couples marrying overseas and would distract from practical lesbian and gay
relationship reforms.247 In the Sydney Morning Herald he described the lesbian and gay community
as being unprepared for the debate, noting the division amongst activists:

241

Ibid.

242

Ibid.

243

Tim Benzie, Gay Marriage: Massachusetts Gets Go-Ahead For Right To Wed, The Sydney Star
Observer, 689, 20 November 2003, 1.
244

Year in Review: the Big Issues, The Sydney Star Observer, 694, 24 December 2003, 3.

245

Rex Wockner, Activists declare war on marriage amendment, The Sydney Star Observer, 695, 8 January
2004, 19.
246

Rodney Croome, Will Gay Marriage be the Next TAMPA?, The Sydney Star Observer, 696, 15 January
2004, 3.
247

Ibid.

!41

Opinion is sharply divided between those who want the choice to marry, those who insist on
the exclusive pursuit of bread-and-butter reforms in areas like superannuation and taxation,
and those who label marriage a dangerous domestication of queer exuberance.248

!
Activist and barrister David Buchanan saw it as unlikely that marriage would engage the Australian
public, and advocated the NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobbys (GLRL) incremental and
pragmatic reform approach.249 A letter to the Star went further, dismissing marriage advocacy as
employing the terminology of homophobes and being a distraction from achieving practical
relationship equality.250 Nonetheless, the visual of same-sex couples getting married overseas was
potent. When San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom began issuing marriage licenses to lesbian and
gay couples in February 2004, the Star ran a cover photo of a three year old watching his two
fathers take their vows.251 An article in the same issue welcomed the new world of gay marriage,
and described legal marriages as the latest and greatest act of international lesbian and gay civil
disobedience.252 That month the Melbourne lesbian and gay festival Midsumma hosted Summa
Vows, where 300 couples took part in a mass commitment ceremony that advocated equal rights
for same-sex couples.253 By April, Croome was calling outright for a same-sex marriage debate,
saying marriage was potentially the fastest-acting antidote to a legacy of stigmatising same-sex
relationships.254

!
As Croome predicted, in 2004 Australian same-sex couples started travelling overseas to get
married. In April, three couples from Melbourne and Perth, who had been married in Canada, began

248

Rodney Croome, Debate on gay unions about to be hijacked, The Sydney Morning Herald, 9 February
2004, 13.
249

David Buchanan, Gay Marriage: A Practical Approach, The Sydney Star Observer, 697, 22 January
2004, 5.
250

David Skidmore Letter: No Mileage in Marriage, The Sydney Star Observer, 697, 22 January 2004, 9.

251

On our cover, The Sydney Star Observer, 19 February 2004, 1/3.

252

Stacy Farrar, A world of gay marriage, The Sydney Star Observer, 19 February 2004, 5.

253

Ibid.

254

Rodney Croome, Whats the problem?, The Sydney Star Observer, 1 April 2004, 6.

!42

preparing for a legal challenge to seek recognition in Australia.255 One couple told the Star that the
symbolism of marriage was important to them, that their wedding indicated to their families that
their relationship was as valid as those of their straight siblings.256 One week later, before the
challenges could be heard, the Howard government had announced its intention to amend the
Marriage Act 1961 to explicitly define marriage as between one man and one woman.257 The move
was designed to preempt any judicial activism that may have forced the Commonwealth to
recognise overseas marriages.258 The original draft of the Marriage Amendment Bill 2004 included
an amendment to the Family Law Act 1975 to explicitly restrict adoption to heterosexual couples. A
loud and public marriage debate had arrive. After the announcement of the ban, the Star blazed the
headline Marriage Outcry.259 Greens leader Bob Brown described same-sex marriage as logical
and inevitable; Democrats Senator and gay rights activist Brian Greig said marriage was based on
love, trust and commitment and that heterosexual people do not have a monopoly on these
qualities.260 Howard, reported the Herald, claimed that the proposed amendment was directed at
reaffirming a bedrock understanding of our society.261 The Catholic Archbishop of Sydney
Cardinal Pell called for bipartisan support for the ban, writing in the Australian that same-sex
marriage would weaken significantly the place of traditional marriage and bring with it instability
and further confusion to the situation of the family in Australia.262

!
255

Myles Wearring, Marriage debate coming to Oz, The Sydney Star Observer, 710, 22 April 2004, 6;
Farah Farouque, Gay husbands to test their marriage in court, The Age, 4 February 2004, 3; Walker, The
Same-Sex Marriage Debate in Australia, 110.
256

Myles Wearring, Aussie face of gay marriage, The Sydney Star Observer, 716, 3 June 2004, 3.

257

Myles Wearring, Marriage Outcry, The Sydney Star Observer, 711, 29 April 2004, 1; Gays not
Howards target, but they get hurt anyway, The Sydney Morning Herald, 29 April 2004, 12.
258

Berns and Berman, Homophobia Perpetuated, 104; Witzleb, Marriage as the Last Frontier?, 154;
Although it is worth nothing that the amendment represented more than just an attempt to politically wedge
Labor. The move aligned with what Johnson has identified as the Howard Governments attempts to
construct heterosexual citizens as the norm through public policy: Carol Johnson, Heteronormative
Citizenship: The Howard Governments Views on Gay and Lesbian Issues. Australian Journal of Political
Science 38:1 (2003): 45-62.
259

Myles Wearring, Marriage Outcry, The Sydney Star Observer, 711, 29 April 2004, 1.

260

Ibid.

261

Gays not Howards target, but they get hurt anyway, The Sydney Morning Herald, 29 April 2004, 12.

262

George Pell, The Case Against Gay Marriage, The Australian, 4 May 2004, 13.

!43

Labor under Mark Latham offered its support for the marriage amendment.263 Although one Labor
MP, Tanya Plibersek, told the Star she would oppose the ban: I wont be supporting anything that
sets the cause of lesbian and gay people back in this city.264 Plibersek and her colleague Anthony
Albanese pushed Labor towards a compromise that saw the party oppose the adoption amendments
and saw the marriage bill referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee for a public
inquiry.265 As the debate drew on, tensions emerged within lesbian and gay activist circles over
direction and strategy. Activists began voicing frustration with groups like the NSW GLRL for
focusing on de facto recognition over marriage.266 In June it was reported that two members of the
GLRL resigned, citing frustration at the Lobbys failure to anticipate the marriage debate and an
unwillingness to campaign for same-sex marriage.267 After the Equal Rights Network, a recently
formed national umbrella group, couldnt agree to give priority to marriage, several activists formed
a new single-issue advocacy group dedicated to promoting same-sex marriage.268 The group,
Australian Marriage Equality (AME), was formed by Rodney Croome, Luke Gahan, Peter Furness
and other activists, and began preparing a submission to the inquiry.269 At the height of uncertainty
around the legality of lesbian and gay marriages, a professional marriage advocacy group had
emerged. At the same time, around 750 people gathered at Sydney Town Hall to protest for equal
relationship recognition before the law.270 In late July, Croome and Gahan addressed a smaller
crowd in Sydney, and Plibersek urged those in attendance to submit to the Senate inquiry.271

!
The Senate inquiry, however, never delivered its report. In August the government, in its third
attempt and just two months from an election, passed the Marriage Amendment Act 2004 without

263

Berns and Berman, Homophobia Perpetuated, 104.

264

Stacy Farrar, MP: Marriage Ban Unlikely, 712, The Sydney Star Observer, 6 May 2004, 6.

265

Myles Wearring, Marriage Ban Stalled, The Sydney Star Observer, 716, 3 June 2004, 1.

266

Daniel Hookes, Letter: Marriage, Not Partnerships, The Sydney Star Observer, 709, 15 April 2004, 7.

267

Stacy Farrar, G&L Rights Lobby split on marriage, The Sydney Star Observer, 716, 3 June 2004, 3.

268

Stacy Farrar, Fight for Marriage, The Sydney Star Observer, 720, 1 July 2004, 1.

269

Ibid.

270

Rally for Equal Rights, The Sydney Star Observer, 720, 1 July 2004, 1.

271

Myles Wearring, Protesters March in Sydney, The Sydney Star Observer, 724, 29 July 2004, 5.

!44

the proposed changes to the Family Law Act.272 With the abortion changes shelved, Labor recanted
on its earlier insistence on an inquiry and supported the ban.273 The lesbian and gay community
reacted with outrage and anger. The Star in its front page story Community fights back noted that
the paper had received an unprecedented number of letters to the editor on the issue.274 The
Melbourne Star Observer labelled the day the ban passed as Black Friday.275 Croome said he had
received more angry emails on the issue than any before it, and Plibersek said she had received 300
emails from lesbian and gay voters in one week.276 This anger had been missing in the months prior:
the Sydney Star Observer reported that of the 12,000 submissions to the aborted Senate inquiry,
only 100 had opposed the amendment.277 Plibersek told the paper: Frankly it didnt help me in
caucus when I was arguing that the lesbian and gay community cares a lot about these things.278
Once passage of the ban became certain, however, opposition was much louder. Former GLRL
member Bernard Ryan described the amendment as a victory for homophobia and wrote that the
lesbian and gay community have been beaten and shown itself to be self-absorbed, incapable of
seeing the big picture, and apathetic about, and unprepared to fight for, our rights.279 One letter
told of the writers intention to get married in Canada regardless, another labelled Howard and
Latham homophobic, others blamed the naivety and apathy of the lesbian and gay community for
the ban.280 Government frontbencher Amanda Vanstone, in a speech before the Sydney Gay and
Lesbian Business Association, tried to reassure the community that the amendment didnt change

272

Marriage Amendment Act 2004, Commonwealth, available from http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/

C2004A01361 [5 October 2014].
273

Berns and Berman, Homophobia Perpetuated, 105.

274

Community Fights Back, The Sydney Star Observer, 726, 12 August 2004, 1.

275

Black Friday, The Melbourne Star Observer, 19 August 2004, 1.

276

Ibid.

277

Ibid.

278

Ibid.

279

Bernard Ryan, Victory for Homophobia, The Sydney Star Observer, 726, 12 August 2004, 1.

280

Letters: Get Fucked, No Preferences, Content to be Screwed, The Sydney Star Observer, 726, 12 August
2004, 1.

!45

anything.281 The Government, said Vanstone, did not get contacted much by the gay lesbian
community in the lead-up to the passage of the bill.282

!
Over the next few weeks the letters continued to flow in from the Stars readers: one wrote of their
anger over Latham colluding with homophobes to legislate that gay love and commitment are
inferior to their heterosexual counterparts.283 Another threatened to leave Australia for Canada.284
One reader called for the lesbian and gay community to adopt the tactics of socially conservative
activists: If we dont mobilise, all the hard-won progress of the past decades will go down the
drain.285 Several wrote in defence of the GLRLs pragmatic approach.286 Like in the months prior,
the letter pages of the major mainstream newspapers contained debate on both sides of the issue.287
In an article in late August, Dennis Altman urged readers not to vote on the basis of same-sex
marriage, writing that before the marriage ban there was no demand in Australia for gay
marriage.288 Many homosexuals regard marriage as an outdated religious concept, and want the
recognition of civil unions, wrote Altman.289 Nonetheless, many in the lesbian and gay community
saw the symbolism of the ban as a direct attack on their rights and the legitimacy of their sexual
orientation.290 Luke Gahan was in 2004 a 23-year old spokesperson for AME, and was planning his
own same-sex wedding in Canada.291 He later reflected on the significance of the ban:

!
281

Myles Wearring, Ban Means Nothing, The Sydney Star Observer, 727, 19 August 2004, 1.

282

Ibid.

283

Lee Anderson, Letter: One-Night Stand, The Sydney Star Observer, 727, 19 August 2004, 10.

284

Nadine Champion, Letter: Giving Notice, The Sydney Star Observer, 727, 19 August 2004, 10.

285

Tony Whelan, Letter: Right-Wing Tactics, The Sydney Star Observer, 727, 19 August 2004, 10.

286

Lobby Support #1, Lobby Support #2, The Sydney Star Observer, 727, 19 August 2004, 14.

287

See for example: Sydney Morning Herald, 16 August 2004, 12; The Age, 16 August 2004, 12; The
Courier Mail, 7 August 2004; The Courier Mail, 20 August 2004, 18; The Advertiser, 16 August 2004, 18.
288

Dennis Altman, Responsible gay citizenship: Theres more to vote for than gay marriage, The Sydney
Star Observer, 728, 26 August 2004, 7.
289

Ibid.

290

Letters: Tit for Tat; Ghandis Wisdom; Insularity; Christian Takeover, The Sydney Star Observer, 728,
26 August 2004, 10.
291

Luke Gahan, Gay marriage bring it on, The Melbourne Star Observer, 100, 4 August 2005, 7.

!46

Whilst the banning of same-sex marriage was a devastating event, it politicised [Gahans
partner] Mark and many other gay and lesbian people who had never taken an interest in
politics before. Prime Minister Howard had unintentionally lit a fire that would keep on
growing and never burn out.292

!
One gay man from Camperdown wrote that he felt sick to the stomach, that because of the ban he
now felt as if his relationship was not equal to other Australians.293 Many in the community felt
betrayed by the ALP, especially after a speech to an Australian Christian Lobby rally by shadow
attorney-general Nicola Roxon that emphasised her partys support for the ban.294 By the end of
2004, Croome told the Star that the lesbian and gay community was in the worst position it has
occupied since the birth of the modern gay movement in Australia 40 years ago.295

!
The sharp symbolism of the marriage amendment galvanised many lesbian and gay community
members who were previously ambivalent about same-sex activism and rights issues. Howards
attempt to wedge Labor had failed, but he had inadvertently provided a wake-up call to a new
generation of activists and homosexuals. The anger provoked by the marriage amendment,
combined with media coverage of marriage debates internationally, catapulted same-sex marriage
from a consistent but marginal lesbian and gay rights issue into a defining measures of lesbian and
gay acceptance. But, as the previous two chapters have detailed, an interest in same-sex marriage
did not simply suddenly emerge in 2004 from international pressures. It was influenced by longterm trends in lesbian and gay communities. These included an increased interest in governmental
relationship recognition, and an increased desire for social integration and normalisation of samesex relationships. After 2004, lesbian and gay activists increasingly looked towards marriage a way
forward. What emerged was a new, mainstream movement with a singular aim: to promote the
acceptance and legalisation of same-sex marriage in Australian society. Over the decade from 2004,
this movement enjoyed unprecedented success in changing the minds of the Australian public.

!
292

Luke Gahan, The ins and outs of marriage (and divorce), in Victor Marsh, ed, Speak Now: Australian
perspectives on same-sex marriage (Melbourne: Clouds of Magelan, 2011), 63.
293

Letter: Screwed Over, The Sydney Star Observer, 727, 19 August 2004, 14.

294

Cynthia Banham, Labor wedded to gay marriage ban, The Sydney Morning Herald, 5 August 2004, 10.

295

Myles Wearring, Worst Government Ever, The Sydney Star Observer, 735, 14 October 2004, 1.

!47

!
!
Chapter Four

Debating Marriage

!
!

Since the 2004 marriage amendment, a loud and at times divisive campaign for same-sex marriage
has dominated the lesbian and gay political scene. This chapter will analyse the de facto reform
process in Australia, and examine how it has shaped the same-sex marriage debate. It will then look
at some of the diverse views presented by lesbian and gay groups advocating for same-sex
marriage. These views, presented through Senate inquiries into same-sex marriage, reveal how
dramatically lesbian and gay communities have shifted in their approaches to marriage and
conceptualising their relationships. The post-2004 arguments of groups like Australian Marriage
Equality (AME) show a reverence and embrace of the role that marriage plays in Australian society.
For the broader Australian public, same-sex marriage has operated as a stand-in for broader debates
about the form of marriage and the family. Its popularity with mainstream Australia shows the
adaptability of social institutions.

!
!
Equalising De Facto

!
In 1993 the NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby (GLRL) released a discussion paper entitled The
Bride Wore Pink, which explored the desirability and political plausibility of different forms of
same-sex relationship recognition. The paper noted that relationship laws had historically been
positive for some individuals and a source of repression for others.296 It saw two key benefits that
marriage or registered partnerships had over de facto relationship recognition: they allowed a
couple the choice of entering into a union, and afforded legal status immediately upon enactment.297
The paper recommended a registered partnership system and amendments to state and federal

296

Lesbian and Gay Legal Rights Service, The Bride Wore Pink. Australian Gay and Lesbian Law Journal
3 (1993, First Edition): 3.
297

Ibid., 22.

!48

legislation to eliminate discrimination.298 It determined against advocating for same-sex marriage

because of disagreement within the lesbian and gay community over the relevance and
desirability.299 After consultation with the lesbian and gay community, the 1994 revised report
recommended pursuing same-sex inclusion in de facto recognition as a practical approach to
obtaining some recognition of our relationships.300 Marriage or a partnership registry were deemed
to have little or no political feasibility at the time.301 Furthermore, de facto recognition was
considered the only form of recognition that the lesbian and gay community could mostly agree
on.302 The lack of any recognition, wrote the GLRL, was a serious and damaging breach of legal
and human rights.303 Graycar notes in the discussion paper a suspicion, likely informed by
feminism, of marriage as the benchmark upon which all relationships should be judged.304

!
The approach articulated in The Bride Wore Pink defined much of the lesbian and gay law reform
campaigns of the 1990s which, unlike the US debates around DOMA, were largely uninterested in
marriage.305 By the 1990s, the lack of legal protections and benefits afforded to same-sex couples
had become increasingly evident to lesbian and gay communities. The group Homodefactos formed
in the mid-90s with the explicit aim of highlighting the legal difficulties faced by same-sex
relationships and achieving government recognition.306 The ACT was the first jurisdiction to

298

Ibid., 1.

299

Ibid., 2, 23.

300

Lesbian and Gay Legal Rights Service, The Bride Wore Pink, February 1994 Second Edition, available
from http://glrl.org.au/images/stories/the_bride_wore_pink_2nd_ed.pdf [3 October 2014], 8; Graycar and
Millbank, From Functional Family to Spinster Sisters, 131.
301

The Bride Wore Pink, February 1994 Second Edition, 8.

302

Ibid.

303

Ibid.

304

Graycar and Millbank, From Functional Family to Spinster Sisters, 131.

305

Ibid., 122.

306

See for example the Homodefactos submission to the Equal Opportunity Commission Victorias SameSex Relationships and the Law discussion paper. Their submission contained a story by an anonymous gay
man in his forties who encountered legal difficulties surrounding insurance and property because his
relationship was unrecognised. In: Submission in Support of Option 6.1, Greg Brown Homodefacto
Records, Box 1: Folder 1, ALGA, South Yarra.

!49

introduce a limited form of de facto recognition in 1994.307 NSW introduced a comprehensive

scheme in 1999 with the Property (Relationships) Legislation Amendment Act.308 This reform was
guided by the recommendations of The Bride Wore Pink.309 Between 1997 and 2006 every
Australian state and territory introduced legislation to legally recognise same-sex relationships as de
facto partners.310 Although employing a range of terminology, the reforms ensured that on a state
and territorial level same-sex de facto couples had almost all the rights and benefits of heterosexual
de facto and married couples.311 These reforms were mostly achieved by relatively small groups of
professional activist and lobby groups working with parliaments. They were all introduced under
Labor governments, yet notably received little parliamentary opposition from the conservative state
and territory Liberal oppositions.312 De facto reform arguments were based in practicality, and the
issue was not as politicised or culturally symbolic as same-sex marriage. Consequently, the de facto
system provided Australian activists with a less divisive route to same-sex relationship recognition
than the United States.

!
Federal reforms arrived later, and it wasnt until the 2008 reforms by the new Labor government
that de facto recognition was effectively equalised in Commonwealth law. The reforms were
prompted by the Same-Sex, Same-Entitlement report released by the Australian Human Rights
Commission in 2007, and were based on an audit of Commonwealth legislation by the Attorney
Generals department. The audit searched federal legislation for terms such as spouse, marital
and de facto and proposed amendments based on removing sexual and gender discrimination from

307

Domestic Relationships Act 1994, ACT, available from http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1994-28/

current/pdf/1994-28.pdf [7 July 2014].
308

The Property (Relationships) Legislation Amendment Act 1999 No 4, NSW, available from http://
www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/0/719a5271ce2bf6ed4a25676f0028dd46/$FILE/
1999-4.pdf [28 September 2014]; This Act altered the definition of de facto relationships established in the
Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW).
309

Graycar and Millbank, From Functional Family to Spinster Sisters, 133.

310

Witzleb, Marriage as the Last Frontier?, 138; Graycar and Millbank, From Functional Family to
Spinster Sisters, 122; For a list of the relevant acts, see footnote 53.
311

Graycar and Millbank, From Functional Family to Spinster Sisters, 135.

312

Only in Western Australia and South Australia was there serious parliamentary opposition: Ibid., 136.

!50

their definitions of relationships.313 The Same-Sex, Same-Entitlement report used human rights as
its framework, finding that systemic discrimination in federal legislation had made lesbian and
gay individuals into second-class citizens, representing a breach of Australias obligations under the
UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.314 The reforms, spread across three
Commonwealth Acts, amended around 85 pieces of legislation to recognise de facto same-sex
couples in areas such as taxation, discrimination, immigration and welfare.315 The Coalition gave
the reforms bipartisan support, despite the Howard Government disallowing its departments from
submitting to the Same-Sex, Same-Entitlements inquiry only a few years earlier.316 The reforms also
included significant changes to the Family Law Act 1975. For the first time, same-sex and
heterosexual de facto couples were granted access to the family law courts in matters relating to
property and maintenance disputes.317 The effective equalisation of de facto relationship recognition
at a state then federal level by 2008 changed the tenor of the same-sex marriage debate. With
relationship recognition effectively equalised, same-sex marriage became a largely symbolic and
cultural debate over the meaning of marriage, family and same-sex relationships. The question
shifted to: should homosexuals be allowed into dominant social paradigms of the family?

!
!
313

Letter from Attorney Generals Department to Mr Peter Hallahan, 8 October 2008, Appendix ASearch
Terms Used in Audit, Senate Correspondence regarding Same-Sex (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth
Laws-General Law Reform) Bill 2008, available from http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/senate/committee/
legcon_ctte/same_sex_general_law_reform/submissions/add01.pdf [25 September 2014], 6.
314

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Same-Sex, Same Entitlements, May 2007,
available from https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/human_rights/samesex/report/pdf/
SSSE_Report.pdf [25 September 2014], 9-10.
315

Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth LawsGeneral Law Reform) Act 2008,
Commonwealth, http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2008A00144 [1 September 2014]; Same-Sex
Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth LawsSuperannuation) Act 2008, Commonwealth,
available from http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2008A00134 [1 September 2014]; Family Law
Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Act 2008, Commonwealth, available from
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2008A00115 [1 September 2014]; Commonwealth Attorney-Generals
Department, Overview of the Australian Governments same-sex law reforms, available from http://
www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/Pages/Samesexreforms.aspx [1 September 2014].
316

Laura Tingle, Federal ban on aiding same-sex rights inquiry, The Australian Financial Review, 22 June
2006, 5.
317

The Human Rights Commission has noted that some inequality in family law remains, concerning
adoption and identifying the children of a de facto relationship. https://www.humanrights.gov.au/inquiryfamily-law-amendment-de-facto-financial-matters-and-other-measures-bill-2008 ; Willett has also discussed
the significant difficulties that implementation of the 2008 reforms caused for some same-sex couples, in
Graham Willett, Howard and the Homos. Social Movement Studies 9:2 (April 2010): 189.

!51

!
The Marriage Equality Movement

!
The 2004 amendment to the Marriage Act prompted the emergence of a political movement with
the explicit goal of promoting same-sex marriage. Over the decade since 2004 this movement, while
attracting heated opposition, has been remarkably successful in changing the attitudes of the
Australian public. The marriage debate contrasts strongly with the campaign for de facto
recognition. Whereas the de facto campaign was a focussed lobbying effort, the marriage campaign
has been a populist movement centred on positive and normalised conceptualisations of same-sex
couples. In arguing for same-sex inclusion, advocates have affirmed the role of marriage in
Australian society and presented an understanding of marriage and same-sex relationships that
aligns with the views of same-sex marriage advocates in the 1970s. This campaign has helped shift
the lesbian and gay political scene away from asserting difference, towards seeking normalisation
and acceptance what has been referred to by some queer and feminist critics as an
assimilationist approach.318

!
Australian Marriage Equality has been the central activist organisation devoted to same-sex
marriage. AME was founded as a response to the 2004 amendment and has grown rapidly in the
decade since to become one of the largest lesbian and gay rights organisations in Australian
history.319 Another group, Equal Love, has regularly organised same-sex marriage rallies across
Australia. Equal Love began as a campaign of the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby
(VGLRL) in 2004, but eventually became an independent organisation. Post-2004, rights lobbies

318 Adam

Isaiah Green, Queer Unions: Same-sex Spouses Marrying Tradition and Innovation. Canadian
Journal of Sociology 35:3 (2010): 405-7; Brook, Stalemate, 54.
319 AME

in 2009 claimed to be Australias largest national, membership-based, lesbian, gay, bisexual,

transgender and intersex (LGBTI) human rights organisation. In: Australian Marriage Equality, Submission
to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee Inquiry Into the Marriage Equality Amendment
Bill 2009, available from http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/
Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Completed_inquiries/2008-10/marriage_equality/submissions/sublist1a
[25 September 2014], 4.

!52

and other gay organisations increasingly adopted marriage as a goal.320 The campaign for same-sex
marriage, by these groups and unaffiliated individuals, has taken place through rallies, opinion
pieces, publications, letter campaigns, and direct political lobbying. After the failure of same-sex
marriage and civil union initiatives on a state and territory level, this campaign has been primarily
focused on the Commonwealth Parliament.321 These groups have adopted two main discursive
tactics: the assertion of same-sex marriage as a civil and human rights issue, and the emphasis on
love and commitment when discussing same-sex relationships. In a recent AME publication the
group outlined their conceptualisation of same-sex marriage: given that marriage is one of the
bedrock institutions upon which free societies such as Australias are founded, and if Marriage is
a civil/legal institution regulated by the state, then it cannot logically exclude a whole category of
people.322 According to AME the issue fundamentally relates to a question of basic equality
marriage is effectively a civil right governed by the state, and the exclusion of same-sex couples
breaks the principle of equality before the law.323 One campaign poster from Equal Love
emphasised the marriage-like nature of many same-sex relationships: Same-sex couples are equal
in commitment, quality and love to mixed-sex relationships. But they are not treated equally by the
law yet.324

!
320

See for example: Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby (NSW), The GLRL Supports Full Marriage Equality,
Media Release, 9 October 2009, available from http://glrl.org.au/index.php/Resources/Media-Releases/9October-2009-The-GLRL-supports-full-marriage-equality [1 October 2014]; Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian
Rights Group, State same-sex marriage law welcomed / Right to marry key to legal equality, Media
Release, 20 June 2008, available from http://tglrg.org/more/359_0_1_130_M2/ [1 October 2014]; See also
the activities of groups such as the Rainbow Family Council and the Parents, Families and Friends of
Lesbians and Gays.
321

In 2012 Queensland Parliament repealed the ceremonial element of the states civil union legislation. In
2013, same-sex marriage failed for a second time in the Tasmania Legislative Council. Significantly, in 2013
the High Court of Australia ruled that same-sex marriage legislation in the ACT was inconsistent with the
Federal Marriage Act and was therefore unconstitutional. See: Robyn Ironside, Premier Campbell Newman
changes civil union laws to remove mimicry of marriage, The Courier Mail, 12 June 2012; Matt Smith,
Same-sex marriage Bill fails but fight goes on, The Mercury, 30 October 2013; Elizabeth Byrne, High
Court throws out ACTs same-sex marriage laws, ABC News Online, 13 December 2013, available at http://
www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-12/high-court-decision-on-act-same-sex-marriage-laws/5152168 [20 August
2014].
322

Christopher Puplick and Larry Galbraith, Marriage Equality for all Australians: Guaranteeing Security
and Certainty for All, Australian Marriage Equality, May 2014, available from http://
www.australianmarriageequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Marriage-Equality_Book.pdf [25
September 2014], 3.
323

Ibid., 241

324

Stand Up For Same-Sex Relationship Rights!, Equal Love/VGLRL Poster, c.2004, ALGA, South Yarra.

!53

The national debate prompted by same-sex marriage has been significant, and many of the
arguments used by activists have affirmed the role of marriage in Australian society. In 2009 the
federal Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs held a public inquiry into a same-sex marriage bill
introduced by the Australian Greens. The inquiry prompted 28,000 submissions from a broad range
of perspectives, a record number of submissions to the Senate committee.325 In its submission, AME
described marriage as providing partners, families and the general community with a universal
language for love, commitment and relationships.326 AME saw same-sex marriage as a human
rights issue, arguing that the denial of marriage equality is a serious act of legal discrimination.327
Furthermore, granting the legal and social recognition and respect of marriage to same-sex
couples would affirm that marriage is defined by love and respect not prejudice and
discrimination.328 Another advocacy group, the Australian Coalition for Equality, described
marriage as the highest form of commitment between two people, and saw exclusion as
fundamentally discriminatory.329 AME representative Rodney Croome wrote that marriage
traditionally and conventionally creates kinship through a public recognition of connection and
belonging.330 These arguments affirmed the importance of marriage to society and to the social
needs of couples, while simultaneously emphasising its ability to adapt to new understandings of
the family. They closely interlinked marriage with a discourse on romantic love.331 The emphasis on
the social and cultural acceptance afforded by marriage to same-sex couples echoes the arguments
used by members of the MCC more than three decades earlier. These arguments represented a
radical departure from the ambivalence that many rights groups previously held towards marriage.

325

Legal and Consitutional Affairs Legislation Committee: Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009,
Australian Senate Report, November 2009, available from http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/senate/committee/
legcon_ctte/marriage_equality/report/report.pdf [25 September], Appendix 1: 53.
326 Australian

Marriage Equality, Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee
Inquiry Into the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009, 2009, 7.
327

Ibid., 6.

328

Ibid., 7.

329 Australian

Coalition for Equality, Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee
Inquiry Into the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009, available from http://www.aph.gov.au/
Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Completed_inquiries/
2008-10/marriage_equality/submissions/sublist1a [25 September 2014], 3.
330

Legal and Consitutional Affairs Legislation Committee: Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009,
Australian Senate Report, November 2009, 20.
331

For more, see: Grossi, The meaning of love in the debate for legal recognition of same-sex marriage in
Australia, 490-3.

!54

!
The 2009 Senate inquiry revealed a broad range of views on the nature of marriage in contemporary
Australia. Opposition came primarily from churches and family organisations. They focused on two
key areas: asserting a traditional definition of marriage, and emphasising outcomes for children.332
The Australian Christian Lobby argued that marriage had a broad cultural and social significance in
providing an institution for procreation and raising children. Reducing marriage, it wrote, to a
simple contract of consent and love between two people is a revisionist approach that has neither
context nor legitimacy.333 The Catholic Diocese of Sydney argued that marriage demanded
special recognition as a means for the law to promote the heterosexual family unit as the best
mode of raising children.334 Catholic Archbishop Cardinal Pell said the state didnt have the
authority to change the nature of marriage as a natural, human institution.335 This reflected a
prevalent belief amongst opponents that the traditional English common-law definition of marriage
was innate to human nature and fundamental to the social order. Of the 28,000 submissions to the
2009 inquiry, 17,000 were opposed to legislating for same-sex marriage, while just 11,000 were in
favour.336 Three years later the numbers were inverted: a 2012 Senate inquiry into another Greens
bill to amend the Marriage Act received a record 79,200 submissions, of which 46,400 supported
same-sex marriage compared to 32,800 opposed.337

!
The inquiry submissions reflect a profound shift in public attitudes towards same-sex marriage
since 2004, both among the general Australian public and within the lesbian and gay community. A
Newspoll survey in June 2004, the first on the topic, found just 38 percent of those surveyed

332

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee: Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009,
Australian Senate Report, November 2009, 27-47.
333

Ibid., 28.

334

Ibid., 33.

335

Ibid., 34.

336

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee: Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009,
Australian Senate Report, November 2009, 1.
337

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee: Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010,
Australian Senate Report, June 2012, available from http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/
Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Completed%20inquiries/2010-13/
marriageequality2012/report/index [27 September 2014], 7.

!55

supported same-sex marriage, 44 percent were opposed and 18 percent were uncommitted.338
Support has steadily increased in the years since. By the time of the 2010 election a Galaxy survey
had support at 62 percent.339 By 2014, one poll commissioned by AME had the figure as high as 72
percent of Australians.340 Among lesbian and gay Australians, support for same-sex marriage has
similarly shifted from a minority to a majority. According to VGLRL research on Victorian LGBTI
(Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex) individuals, in 2000 only 23 percent of respondents
chose marriage as their personal choice for same-sex relationships recognition.341 In 2005, 45
percent of respondents said they would prefer to get married than have de facto or domestic
partnership recognition.342 By 2010 a survey of LGBTI Australians by the University of Queensland
found that 54.7 percent of respondents chose marriage as their personal preference for relationship
recognition.343 Moreover, 78 percent of respondents said they supported the legalisation of
marriage.344 Notably, there was a significant generational divide. The survey found 66.7 percent of
lesbian and gay Australians aged 18-19 wanted to get married, compared to just a third of those
aged 60 and older.345 This reflects the greater support for same-sex marriage among young
Australians generally.346

!
This embrace of same-sex marriage represents a significant and historic shift in lesbian and gay
politics. What was once a minority position held by a small number of groups and individuals in the

338

Newspoll Market Research Survey, 4-6 June 2004, available from http://
polling.newspoll.com.au.tmp.anchor.net.au/image_uploads/cgi-lib.17497.1.0601_gay.pdf [13 September
2014].
339

Same-Sex Marriage Research 2014: Summary Results, 27 June 2014, Crosby/Textor Research
Strategies Results, available from http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/
R0988-AME-Survey-Report-Jun-2014-WEB-SUMMARY-RESULTS.pdf [27 September 2014], 5.
340

Ibid., 4; According to the poll, support was highest amongst women and those aged 18-35 and lowest
amongst those aged 65 and older and men aged 55 and older.
341

Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, Not Yet Equal: Report on the VGLRL Same-Sex Relationship
Survey 2005, July 2005, available from http://www.glhv.org.au/files/vgrl_report.pdf [5 October 2014], 40.
342

Ibid., 40.

343

Ibid., 42.

344

Ibid., 49.

345

Ibid., 43-4; The survey also found greater desire for marriage amongst lesbians than gay men.

346

Same-Sex Marriage Research 2014: Summary Results, 27 June 2014, Crosby/Textor Research
Strategies Results, 4.

!56

1970s has become a dominant discourse. As highlighted by the arguments put forward by AME, this
shift is informed by a reconceptualisation of marriage from an institution of oppression towards a
valuable and desirable social right. AMEs affirmation of the role of marriage in society and
relationships, and the majority support for same-sex marriage within lesbian and gay communities,
shows the increasing desire for social normalisation and acceptance in homosexual politics. This
shows a reconceptualisation of what it means to be radical, from rejecting heterosexual institutions
to seeking inclusion in them. Furthermore, the popularity of marriage with young lesbian and gay
Australians reflects an increasingly diverse, fluid and negotiable social construction of marriage.
Marriage has become, as Brook tentatively puts it, many things to many people.347 Diverse family
structures and an increase in same-sex parents have redefined marriage and family for a new
generation.348 Many young lesbian and gay Australians see marriage as increasingly less gendered,
heterosexual, political or normative.349 Similarly, the transformation and deinstitutionalisation of
marriage has helped allow same-sex marriage to gain a level of public support unheard of for
previous homosexual rights issues.

!
!
The Current Political Situation

!
Despite broad popular support for same-sex marriage in Australia, Federal legislative reform has
remained elusive. Multiple private members bills, primarily originating from the Greens, have
failed to gain large support, while the two Senate inquiries did not lead to action. Aside from the
brief second prime ministership of Kevin Rudd, no sitting prime minister has supported the
legalisation of same-sex marriage. Meanwhile, between 2004 and 2014, sixteen countries have
allowed homosexuals to marry. These include Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006),

347

Brook, Stalemate, 45.

348 Altman,

The End of the Homosexual?, 196.

349

This is demonstrated by the Not Yet Equal Report; There are of course many exceptions, and a diversity
of young LGBT views of marriage and intimacy. Self-identifying queer students and activists, for example,
are often hostile to same-sex marriage. For an examination of queer students perspectives on marriage, see:
Jessica Rodgers, Live your liberation dont lobby for it: Australian queer student activists perspectives
of same-sex marriage. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 24:4 (August 2010): 601-17;
Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, Not Yet Equal: Report on the VGLRL Same-Sex Relationship
Survey 2005, July 2005.

!57

Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010), Argentina (2010) and Denmark (2012).350 In 2013
Uraguay, New Zealand, France, Brazil and England all saw same-sex marriage legalised.351
Notably, in both New Zealand and England, this legislation was passed under centre-right party
leaders.352 In the United States, a landmark Supreme Court decision saw the Defence of Marriage
Act struck down and the Californian ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional.353 This
ruling meant that marriage licences issued by states are now recognised federally, granting
homosexual marriages all the benefits and rights of heterosexual marriages.354 As of September
2014, 19 US states were issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples.355

!
In Australia, party leaders have been reluctant to touch the issue. And yet, thanks to the international
climate, the popularity of the issue and the determination of campaigners, they have found the issue
difficult to avoid. The 2010 election saw two same-sex marriage opponents, Labor Prime Minister
Julia Gillard and Coalition Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, repeatedly dogged by the issue. The
ABC described it as an issue that's refused to go away during the election.356 While campaigning
both leaders have been repeatedly confronted by voters angry at their opposition to same-sex
marriage.357 In public forums the leaders were repeatedly asked about the issue.358 The most
prominent example came during Abbotts appearance on the ABC television program Q&A. Geoff
350

Jamie Gardiner, Same-Sex Marriage: A Worldwide Trend?, in Current Trends in the Regulation of
Same-Sex Relationships, ed. Oliver Mendelsohn (Leichhardt, NSW: Federation Press, 2010), 95-101; Pew
Research Religion & Public Life Project, Gay Marriage Around the World, 2 September 2014, available
from http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/19/gay-marriage-around-the-world-2013/ [27 September 2014].
351

Pew Research Religion & Public Life Project, Gay Marriage Around the World, 2 September 2014.

352

In the UK this was Conservative Party leader David Cameron and in New Zealand the National Party
leader John Key.
353 Adam

Liptak, Supreme Court Bolsters Gay Marriage With Two Major Rulings, The New York Times, 26
June 2013.
354

Ibid.

355

Pew Research Religion & Public Life Project, Gay Marriage Around the World, 2 September 2014.

356

Paul Kruger, Gay Marriage a Surprise Issue in Election Campaign, ABC PM News Online, 19 August
2010, available from http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2987943.htm [25 September 2014].
357

Ibid.

358

WH Chong, Is Julia Gillard homophobic? Or just whistling? (On same-sex marriage), Crikey News
Online, 13 August 2010, available from http://blogs.crikey.com.au/culture-mulcher/2010/08/13/is-juliagillard-homophobic-or-just-whistling-on-same-sex-marriage/?wpmp_switcher=mobile [27 September];
Michael Gordon and Bella Counihan, Voters Grill Leaders at RSL Forum, The Age, 12 August 2010; Carol
Nader, Making a vow for change, The Age, 13 November 2010, 5.

!58

Thomas, a Vietnam veteran with a gay son, asked Abbott: When will you, sir, overcome your fear
and ignorance of gay people and give them the dignity and respect that you'd happily give to all
other Australians?359 The election revealed the grassroots interest in the issue in mainstream
Australia. While in government, Gillard cited special status of marriage in our culture to justify
her opposition to same-sex marriage.360 Once out of power she adjusted this view, arguing that her
opposition stemmed from her time in university, when as women, as feminists, we were critiquing
marriage.361 Gillard criticised the rites and rituals of marriage as antiquated and undesirable.362
This surprise justification from Gillard shows the continued influence of feminist critiques of
marriage on the contemporary same-sex marriage debate.

!
Nonetheless, since 2004 the Labor party has slowly evolved on the issue, and even Coalition
members are increasingly voicing their support for same-sex marriage. Labor before the 2007
Federal Election reportedly told church groups it would not pursue same-sex marriage or civil
unions in government.363 In government, under Kevin Rudd the party favoured state and territory
relationship registries as the primary method of same-sex relationship recognition.364 Despite
Gillards opposition, during her prime ministership Labor policy slowly changed. Following the
2010 election, many Labor MPs pledged their support for same-sex marriage.365 A robust debate at
the 2011 National Conference led to the passage of an amendment to the partys platform in support
of same-sex marriage.366 This carried the condition that the Labor caucus be given a conscience
vote on the issue. Tony Abbott as prime minister has repeatedly reiterated his belief that from time

359

Geoff Thomas, Tony Abbott joins Q&A, ABC TV Online, 16 August 2010, transcript available from
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2978032.htm [5 July 2014].
360

Michael Gordon and Bella Counihan, Voters grill leaders at RSL forum, The Age, 12 August 2010.

361

Jacqueline Maley, Gillard take on same-sex marriage had new ring, The Sydney Morning Herald, 2
October 2013; Puplick and Galbraith, Marriage Equality for all Australians, 223.
362

Jacqueline Maley, Gillard take on same-sex marriage had new ring, The Sydney Morning Herald, 2
October 2013.
363 Annabel

Stafford, Same-sex row to pit Government against ACT, The Age, 6 December 2007; John
Chesterman and Brian Galligan, The Politics of Rights Protection in Western Democracies. Australian
Journal of Political Science 44:1 (March 2009), 35.
364

Chesterman and Galligan, The Politics of Rights Protection in Western Democracies, 35.

365

Puplick and Galbraith, Marriage Equality for all Australians, 118.

366

Ibid., 119.

!59

immemorial marriage has been between a man and a woman.367 Yet following reports of
multiple Liberal frontbenchers calling for a conscience vote on the issue, Abbott has indicated he
would be open to a conscience vote if the Liberal party room called for it.368

!
The likelihood of legislation over the next few years remains unclear, but the disconnect between
broad popular support for same-sex marriage and parliamentary inaction is increasingly apparent.
As Frew notes, a broad cultural shift in favour of social acceptance of same-sex relationships and
same-sex marriage makes it likely that in the near future marriage will be expanded to include
same-sex couples.369 The political recalcitrance towards marriage reform likely points towards the
religious beliefs of many Australian politicians, but the defence offered by figures like Abbott relies
on a traditional marriage argument that ignores the numerous and substantial social and legal
changes that the institution has undergone.370

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
367

Jessica Marszalek, Prime Minister Tony Abbott says he will attend sisters wedding, but not support the
marriage, The Daily Telegraph, 23 October 2013.
368

Christian Kerr, Libs challenge Abbott on gay conscience vote, The Australian, 13 December 2011.

369

Frew, The Social Construction of Marriage, 86.

370 Altman,

The End of the Homosexual?, 194; Amber Bailey, Redefining Marriage: How the Institution of
Marriage Has Changed to Make Room for Same-Sex Couples. Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender and
Society 27:3 (2012): 306-8; Frew, The Social Construction of Marriage, 80-7.

!60

!
!
!
!

Conclusion

This thesis set out to explore why same-sex marriage has become such a dominant contemporary
social issue. It has sought to historicise the contemporary same-sex marriage debate as part of the
history of sexuality and the family. In doing so, it has positioned same-sex marriage debates as
fertile groups for historical exploration, and more than just a recent and isolated political
phenomenon. As we have seen, same-sex marriage has been a divisive and contested concept since
the beginnings of gay liberation in Australia. Some writers have approached same-sex marriage
primarily as a contemporary political issue caused by international events and the 2004 Marriage
Amendment Act.371 While the Marriage Amendment was the decisive turning point, the emergence
of same-sex marriage had deeper roots. This thesis has identified two important social shifts that
facilitated the emergence of same-sex marriage: the de-radicalisation of lesbian and gay
communities, and a transformation in the institution of marriage.

!
Primarily, this thesis has sought to identify a significant shift in the lesbian and gay rights
movement away from a particular form of radical politics, towards a campaign for social
normalisation. This shifting understanding of radicalisation is reflected in the same-sex marriage
movement, which expanded from a present but minority position in the 1970s to dominate lesbian
and gay politics thirty years later. As we saw in chapter two, since the beginnings of gay liberation,
homosexual individuals and gay churches have expressed a desire for inclusion in the mainstream
values and benefits perceived as being attached to the institution of marriage. These include legal
recognition, cultural acceptance, the public social blessing that comes with a wedding, and the
needs of same-sex parenting. During the first decades of a public lesbian and gay politics, these
views were marginal compared with discourses of liberation and radical feminism. As chapter three
outlines, however, by the 1990s this trend was shifting, and a new embrace of same-sex marriage
was emerging and becoming dominant. When Howard introduced the 2004 Marriage Amendment
Act to explicitly ban same-sex marriage, he galvanised the lesbian and gay rights movement into
action. The resultant same-sex marriage campaign, as discussed in chapter four, embraced a
371

Walker, The Same-Sex Marriage Debate in Australia, 109-11; Rodgers, Live your liberation, 604.

!61

language of normalisation, social acceptance and mainstream cultural values. AME expressed a
belief that marriage could benefit and enhance same-sex relationships, echoing the views of lesbian
and gay congregations in the 1970s. The increased popularity of same-sex marriage within lesbian
and gay communities, and the dramatic generation gap on the issue, highlights the growing
importance of social normalisation and acceptance within these communities.

!
The emergence of same-sex marriage has also been facilitated by a second, deeper shift in
Australian society: the steady remaking of the institution of marriage. Chapter one sought to
identify some of the major changes to marriage over the 20th century, including the equalisation of
womens rights, the Family Law Act, demographic shifts, and the deinstitutionalisation of marriage
legally and socially. Chapter four examined a small selection of views put forward by same-sex
marriage campaigners since 2004. These views present a vision of marriage as an equal,
ungendered, voluntary union entered into primarily as an expression of commitment and love. This
contrasts sharply with the views presented by radical feminist and homosexual activists during gay
liberation, where marriage was a site of gender oppression and patriarchal dominance. Ultimately,
the marriage that gay liberation and radical feminism was responding to was fundamentally
different from the institution as experienced and conceptualised by Australian society in the 2000s.
Marriage has become more negotiable and diverse, and in the eyes of same-sex marriage
campaigners aligns with the increasingly normalising goals of lesbian and gay activists.372 The
transformation of marriage also likely facilitated the broad public support for same-sex marriage
that emerged post-2004, by detaching marriage from traditionalist notions of the heterosexual
family unit. As Bailey has written of US marriage law, the institution of marriage has evolved to
make room for same-sex couples.373 Historical changes to marriage, Bailey writes, have created a
gender neutral institution that is no longer incompatible with same-sex relationships.374

!
The 2004 amendment, therefore, provided a catalyst that helped reveal forces already at work
within and outside the lesbian and gay political movement. A study of the history of same-sex
marriage can help historians understand broader social changes. This research offers a small first
step in that direction and represents a call for further attempts to historicise same-sex marriage and
372

Brook, Stalemate: Rethinking the Politics of Marriage, 45.

373

Bailey, Redefining Marriage, 306.

374

Ibid., 333.

!62

the family. The broad scope of this thesis had its limitations, and some historical episodes only
lightly touched on demand further study. These include camp weddings prior to gay liberation, the
activities of lesbian and gay churches in Australia and the campaigns for de facto relationship
recognition at a state and territory level.375

!
Willett, in his conclusion to his seminal lesbian and gay history text Living Out Loud, wrote that the
institutions and structures of society have proved much more adaptable than gay liberationists
expected.376 This seems especially true of marriage, which has shown itself to be flexible and
enduring, shifting to incorporate gender equality, divorce and new cultural norms. By the time the
Howard government moved to outlaw same-sex marriage in 2004, marriage was already adapting to
incorporate new sexualities and ideas of what it means to be a family. Social movements are
fundamentally products of their social context, and the changing social construction of marriage has
helped transform the objectives and identities of the lesbian and gay rights movement.377 If and
when lesbian and gay Australians do finally gain official access to this institution, the question then
becomes: how will they change marriage?

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
375

The ALGA contains large holdings on the MCC, CCC and the activities of lesbian and gay de facto
campaigners. Valuable research topics could be developed from these collections. An oral history project
related to same-sex intimacy and relationships could shed further light on the emergence of same-sex
marriage and shifts in lesbian and gay identity.
376

Willett, Living Out Loud, 265.

377 Altman

makes a similar point in: Altman, The End of the Homosexual?, 196.

!63

!
!
Bibliography

!
!
!
Primary Sources

!
!
!
Australian Gay and Lesbian Archives, South Yarra

!
!
Claudias Wedding, Lyds Wedding, Father Brown Wedding, (slides, c.1965-1975), The
Brian Cook Collection, Album 1.

!
History Christs Community Church, Papers of John Willis, Box 1: Folder 4.

!
History of Christs Community Church in Melbourne, Papers of John Willis, Box 1:
Folder 4.

!
Letter from Federal Attorney-Generals Department to John Willis, 31 August 1977, Papers
of John Willis, Box 1: Folder 7.

!
Letter from Federal Attorney-Generals Department to JN Dykes, 13 December 1983,
Metropolitan Community Church of Sydney File.

!
The Rite of Holy Union Certificate, Papers of John Willis, Box 1: Folder 6.

!
Service of Holy Union, Papers of John Willis, Box 1: Folder 2.
!64

!
Submission in Support of Option 6.1, Greg Brown Homodefacto Records, Box 1: Folder
1.

!
Stand Up For Same-Sex Relationship Rights! Equal Love/VGLRL Poster, c.2004.

!
!
Newspapers and Periodicals

!
!

The Australian, 1984-2011.

!
Burn, 1993.
!
Campaign, 1975-9.
!
CAMP Ink, 1971-6.
!
Farrago, 1972.
!
Gay Credo, 1974-5.
!
Gayzette, 1974.
!
One (United States), 1959-63.
!
OutRage, 1989.
!
Outreach, 1975-6.
!
Ladder (United States), 1958-68.
!
Melbourne Gay Liberation Newsletter, 1973.
!
Melbourne Star Observer, 1989-2005.
!
Stallion, 1973-4.
!
!65

Sydney Star Observer, 1996-2003.

!
The Advertiser, 2004.
!
The Australian Financial Review, 2006.
!
The Age, 1975-2010.
!
The Arrow, 1931-2.
!
The Courier Mail, 2004-12.
!
The Daily Telegraph, 1996-2013.
!
The Melbourne Truth, 1949-79.
!
The Mercury, 2013.
!
The News (Perth), 1980.
!
The New York Times (United States), 2013.
!
The Sun (Melbourne), 1979-85.
!
The Sunday Age, 1992.
!
The Sydney Morning Herald, 1970-2013.
!
!
!
!

The Telegraph (Sydney), 1981.

Legislation, Inquiries and Reports

!
Australian Coalition for Equality, Submission to the Senate Legal and
Constitutional Affairs Committee Inquiry Into the Marriage Equality Amendment
Bill 2009, available from http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/
Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Completed_inquiries/
2008-10/marriage_equality/submissions/sublist1a [25 September 2014].
!66

!
Australian Human Rights Commission, Same-Sex: Same Entitlements, Final
Report, 2007, available from https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/samesex-same-entitlements [1 September 2014].

!
Australian Marriage Equality, Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional
Affairs Committee Inquiry Into the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009,
available from http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/
Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Completed_inquiries/2008-10/
marriage_equality/submissions/sublist1a [25 September 2014].

!
Danish Registered Partnership Act 1989, Danish Parliament, available from http://
users.cybercity.dk/~dko12530/s2.htm [3 October 2014].

!
Defence of Marriage Act 1996, US Congress, HR 3396, available from http://
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.3396.ENR:/ [9 July 2014].

!
Domestic Relationships Act 1994, ACT, available from http://
www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1994-28/current/pdf/1994-28.pdf [7 July 2014].

!
Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Act
2008, Commonwealth, available from http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/
C2008A00115 [1 September 2014].

!
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Same-Sex, Same
Entitlements, May 2007, available from https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/
default/files/content/human_rights/samesex/report/pdf/SSSE_Report.pdf [25
September 2014].

!
Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee (1866), Courts of Probate and Divorce, 1 P. & D.
130.

!
!67

Lesbian and Gay Legal Rights Service, The Bride Wore Pink. Australian Gay
and Lesbian Law Journal 3 (1993, First Edition): 67-101.

!
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee Inquiry Into the Marriage
Equality Amendment Bill 2009, Australian Senate Report, November 2009,
available from http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/
marriage_equality/report/report.pdf [25 September].

!
Lesbian and Gay Legal Rights Service, The Bride Wore Pink, February 1994
Second Edition, available from http://glrl.org.au/images/stories/
the_bride_wore_pink_2nd_ed.pdf [3 October 2014].

!
Marriage Amendment Act 2004, Commonwealth, available from http://
www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2004A01361 [5 October 2014].

!
Matrimonial Causes Act 1959, Commonwealth, available from http://
www.comlaw.gov.au/details/c2004c05265 [29 August 2014].

!
Property (Relationships) Legislation Amendment Act 1999 No 4, NSW, available
from http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/
0/719a5271ce2bf6ed4a25676f0028dd46/$FILE/1999-4.pdf [28 September 2014].

!
Same-Sex Marriage Research 2014: Summary Results, 27 June 2014, Crosby/
Textor Research Strategies Results, available from http://
www.australianmarriageequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/R0988-AMESurvey-Report-Jun-2014-WEB-SUMMARY-RESULTS.pdf [27 September 2014].

!
Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth LawsGeneral Law
Reform) Act 2008, Commonwealth, http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/
C2008A00144 [1 September 2014].

!
!68

Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws

Superannuation) Act 2008, Commonwealth, available from http://
www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2008A00134 [1 September 2014].

!
Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, Not Yet Equal: Report on the VGLRL
Same-Sex Relationship Survey 2005, July 2005, available from http://
www.glhv.org.au/files/vgrl_report.pdf [5 October 2014].

!
!
Miscellaneous

!
Byrne, Elizabeth. High Court throws out ACTs same-sex marriage laws, ABC
News Online, 13 December 2013, available at http://www.abc.net.au/news/
2013-12-12/high-court-decision-on-act-same-sex-marriage-laws/5152168 [20
August 2014].

!
Byrnes, Paddy and Robbie Byrnes, La Vie en Rose 1956 (Our Song, Our Year),
in eds. Margaret Bradstock and Louise Wakeling, Words From the Same Heart
(London: Hale and Iremonger, 1987).

!
Chong, WH. Is Julia Gillard homophobic? Or just whistling? (On same-sex
marriage), Crikey News Online, 13 August 2010, available from http://
blogs.crikey.com.au/culture-mulcher/2010/08/13/is-julia-gillard-homophobic-orjust-whistling-on-same-sex-marriage/?wpmp_switcher=mobile [27 September].

!
Commonwealth Attorney-Generals Department, Overview of the Australian
Governments same-sex law reforms, available from http://www.ag.gov.au/
RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/Pages/Samesexreforms.aspx [1 September
2014].

!
de Vaus, David. Diversity and Change in Australian Families: Statistical Profiles.
Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2004.
!69

!
Divorce. Australian Statute Establishes Uniform Federal Law for Marital
Actions. Harvard Law Review 74:2 (1960): 424-427.

!
Gahan, Luke. The ins and outs of marriage (and divorce), in Victor Marsh, ed.
Speak Now: Australian perspectives on same-sex marriage. Melbourne: Clouds of
Magelan, 2011.

!
Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby (NSW), The GLRL Supports Full Marriage
Equality, Media Release, 9 October 2009, available from http://glrl.org.au/
index.php/Resources/Media-Releases/9-October-2009-The-GLRL-supports-fullmarriage-equality [1 October 2014].

!
Kruger, Paul. Gay Marriage a Surprise Issue in Election Campaign, ABC PM
News Online, 19 August 2010, available from http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/
2010/s2987943.htm [25 September 2014].

!
Letter from Attorney Generals Department to Mr Peter Hallahan, 8 October 2008,
Appendix ASearch Terms Used in Audit, Senate Correspondence regarding
Same-Sex (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws-General Law Reform) Bill
2008, available from http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/
same_sex_general_law_reform/submissions/add01.pdf [25 September 2014].

!
Newspoll Market Research Survey, 4-6 June 2004, available from http://
polling.newspoll.com.au.tmp.anchor.net.au/image_uploads/cgi-lib.
17497.1.0601_gay.pdf [13 September 2014].

!
Pew Research Religion & Public Life Project, Gay Marriage Around the World, 2
September 2014, available from http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/19/gaymarriage-around-the-world-2013/ [27 September 2014].

!
!70

Puplick, Christopher and Larry Galbraith. Marriage Equality for all Australians:
Guaranteeing Security and Certainty for All, Australian Marriage Equality, May
2014, available from http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/wp-content/
uploads/2014/06/Marriage-Equality_Book.pdf [25 September 2014].

!
Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group, State same-sex marriage law
welcomed / Right to marry key to legal equality, Media Release, 20 June 2008,
available from http://tglrg.org/more/359_0_1_130_M2/ [1 October 2014].

!
Thomas, Geoff. Tony Abbott joins Q&A, ABC TV Online, 16 August 2010,
transcript available from http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2978032.htm [5 July
2014].

!
!
!
!
Secondary Sources

!
Abbott, Elizabeth. History of Marriage: From Same Sex Unions to Private Vows
and Common Law, the Surprising Diversity of a Tradition. New York: Seven
Stories Press, 2010.

!
Altman, Dennis. The End of the Homosexual? St Lucia, Queensland: University of
Queensland Press, 2013.

!
Baird, Barbara. Kerryn and Jackie: Thinking Historically about Lesbian
Marriages. Australian Historical Studies 36:126 (1997): 253-71.

!
Bailey, Amber. Redefining Marriage: How the Institution of Marriage Has
Changed to Make Room for Same-Sex Couples. Wisconsin Journal of Law,
Gender and Society 27:3 (2012): 305-33.

!
!71

Berns, Sandra and Alan Berman. Homophobia Perpetuated: The demise of the
Inquiry into the Marriage Amendment Bill 2004 (Cth). Alternative Law Journal 30
(2005): 104-108.

!
Brook, Heather. Stalemate: Rethinking the politics of marriage. Feminist Theory
3 (2002): 45-66.

!
Chauncey, George. Why Marriage?: The History Shaping Todays Debate Over
Gay Equality. New York: Basic Books, 2005.

!
Chenier, Elise. Gay Marriage, 1970s Style. Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide
20:2 (March 2013): 19-21.

!
Chesterman, John and Brian Galligan, The Politics of Rights Protection in Western
Democracies. Australian Journal of Political Science 44:1 (March 2009), 29-40.

!
Cherlin, Andrew. The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of
Marriage and Family 66:4 (2004), 848-61.

!
Coontz, Stephanie. Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy or How Love
Conquered Marriage. New York: Viking, 2005.

!
Coontz, Stephanie. The world historical transformation of marriage. Journal of
Marriage and Family 66:4 (November 2004), 974-79.

!
Cott, Nancy. Public vows: A history of marriage and the nation. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 2000.

!
Edwards, Jane. Marriage is sacred: The religious rights arguments against gay
marriage in Australia. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 9:3 (May-June 2007): 247-61.

!
!72

Finlay, Henry. Lawmaking in the Shadow of the Empire: Divorce in Colonial

Australia. Journal of Family History 24 (1999): 74-109.

!
French, Robert. Camping by a Billabong. Sydney: Blackwattle Press, 1993.

!
Frew, Charlotte. The Social Construction of Marriage in Australia: Implications
for Same-Sex Unions. Law In Context 28:1 (June 2010): 78-91.

!
Gardiner, Jamie. Same-Sex Marriage: A Worldwide Trend? In Current Trends in
the Regulation of Same-Sex Relationships, ed. Oliver Mendelsohn, 92-108.
Leichhardt, NSW: Federation Press, 2010.

!
Graycar, Reg and Jenni Millbank. From Functional Family to Spinster Sisters:
Australias Distinctive Path to Relationship Recognition. Washing University
Journal of Law and Policy 24 (2007), 121-64.

!
Green, Adam Isaiah. Queer Unions: Same-sex Spouses Marrying Tradition and
Innovation. Canadian Journal of Sociology 35:3 (2010): 399-436.

!
Greer, Germain. The Female Eunuch. London: Paladin: 1971.

!
Grossi, Renata. The meaning of love in the debate for legal recognition of samesex marriage in Australia. International Journal of Law in Context 8:4 (2012):
487-505.

!
Harrison, Margaret. Australias Family Law Act: The First Twenty-Five Years.
International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 16 (2002): 1-21.

!
Hewitt, Belinda and Janeen Baxter. Who gets married in Australia? The
characteristics associated with a transition into first marriage 2001-6. Journal of
Sociology 48 (2012): 43-61.

!
!73

Johnson, Carol. Heteronormative Citizenship: The Howard Governments Views

on Gay and Lesbian Issues. Australian Journal of Political Science 38:1 (2003):
45-62.

!
Lake, Marilyn. Getting Equal: The History of Australian Feminism. St Leonards,
NSW: Allen and Unwin, 1999.

!
Lake, Marilyn. Marriage as Bondage: The Anomaly of the Citizen Wife.
Australian Historical Studies 122 (1999): 116-129.

!
Marsh, Victor, ed. Speak Now: Australian perspectives on same-sex marriage
(Melbourne: Clouds of Magelan, 2011)

!
Millbank, Jenni. De facto relationships, same-sex and surrogate parents: Exploring
the scope and effects of the 2008 federal relationship reforms. Australian Journal
of Family Law 23:3 (November 2009): 160-193.

!
Parker, Robyn. Perspectives on the future of marriage. Family Matters 72 (2005):
78-82.

!
Pateman, Carole. The Sexual Contract. Cambridge: Polity, 1988.

!
Reynolds, Robert. From Camp to Queer: Re-making the Australian Homosexual.
Carlton South, Vic: Melbourne University Press, 2002.

!
Rodgers, Jessica. Live your liberation dont lobby for it: Australian queer
student activists perspectives of same-sex marriage. Continuum: Journal of
Media & Cultural Studies 24:4 (August 2010): 601-17.

!
Ross, Liz. Revolution Is For Us: The Left and Gay Liberation in Australia.
Melbourne: Interventions, 2013.

!
!74

Simons, Michele. (Re)-forming marriage in Australia? Family Matters 73 (2006):

46-51.

!
Stewart-Winter, Timothy. What Was Same-Sex Marriage? Gay & Lesbian Review
Worldwide 13:1 (2006): 33-5.

!
Walker, Kristen. The Same-Sex Marriage Debate in Australia. International
Journal Of Human Rights 11, 1:2 (Spring 2007): 109-30.

!
Wilcox, Melissa M. Of Markets and Missions: The Early History of the Universal
Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches. Religion and American
Culture: A Journal of Interpretation 11:1 (2001), 83-108.

!
Willett, Graham. Living Out Loud: A History of Gay and Lesbian Activism in
Australia. Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 2000.

!
Willett, Graham. Howard and the Homos. Social Movement Studies 9:2 (April
2010): 187-199.

!
Willett, Graham and Yorick Small, eds, Intimacy, Violence and Activism: Gay and
Lesbian Perspectives on Australasian History and Society. Clayton, Vic: Monash
University Publishing, 2013.

!
Wilson, Shaun. Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Identification and
Attitudes to Same-Sex Relationships in Australia and the United States. People
and Place 12:4 (2004): 12-21.

!
Witzleb, Normann. Marriage as the Last Frontier? Same-Sex Relationship
Recognition in Australia. International Journal Of Law, Policy & The Family 25:2
(August 2011): 135-164.

!
!75

Wotherspoon, Garry. City of the Plain: History of a gay sub-culture. Sydney: Hale
& Iremonger, 1991.

!76