COMMONWEALTH V. THE ACT
The Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly passed the Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013 as part of its legislative agenda to make same-sex unions lawful there. (ACT).
FACTS OF THE CASE :
The ACT Attorney-General, Simon Corbell, originally submitted it before the ACT Legislative Assembly on September 19, 2013. The legislation aimed to strengthen the recognition of same-sex unions already in place in the Australian Capital Territory, including de facto partnerships, civil unions, and same-sex civil unions. (with civil unions being replaced by same-sex marriage if the Act was successfully passed).
The Marriage Equality Bill 2013 was introduced to the Assembly with the backing of Shane Rattenbury, the Greens’ Shane Rattenbury, and all eight Labor Party members in the ACT. All eight members of the Liberal Opposition, however, opposed it, saying that only the Federal Parliament should have the authority to address same-sex marriage.
Attorney General Simon Corbell introduced the bill on September 19, 2013, in the Assembly. Cornell made the following remarks when proposing the bill before the Assembly.
On December 12, the Court issued its decision extremely promptly. It determined that the entire same-sex marriage law of the ACT was “inconsistent” with the federal Marriage Act of 1961 and “of no effect” (7-0).
There can now be a single federal law that applies to all marriages. Modifying the Marriage Act to stipulate that a person’s sex is not a requirement for eligibility to marry is the most direct approach to accomplish this. No state or territory would be permitted to enact legislation regarding marriage of any form since the Marriage Act would continue to be exclusive. Because of that exclusivity, the ACT same-sex marriage act would continue to conflict with the Marriage Act and have no bearing.
JUDGEMENT REVIEW BY SREYA MARY.