Senator David Leyonhjelm to introduce marriage equality bill today

Senator David Leyonhjelm to introduce marriage equality bill today

NSW Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm has announced he would introduce his marriage equality bill in Federal Parliament today.

The news comes after Leyonhjelm shelved his Freedom to Marry bill in early October, after Coalition and Labor MPs in favour of marriage equality reportedly pleaded to him to put it on hold because of the “wrong’’ timing.

According to Fairfax Media, Leyonhjelm said he wanted to re-introduce the bill now because a recent dinner he had with Prime Minister Tony Abbott — who does not support marriage equality — made him realise “there was nothing for me to achieve by delaying it”.

Leyonhjelm’s bill, to be introduced in the Senate later today, seeks to allow not just same-sex couples to marry, but trans* and intersex people as well.

His bill proposes to alter the definition of marriage found in the Marriage Act to one that states it as “the union of two people”, rather than a “man and a woman”.

In addition, the bill proposes that it would not be compulsory for celebrants to marry same-sex couples, except for those employed by the government.

The introduction of the bill is widely expected to increase pressure on the Coalition to allow its MPs a conscience vote on the issue.

Before the last election, Abbott said his party’s position on marriage equality was a question for the party room, but a bill needed to be before the Parliament to prompt them to decide on this.

Marriage equality advocates hope Leyonhjelm’s bill would be a “turning point” to allow for the Coalition to decide in favour of a conscience vote.

The Labor party already has a conscience vote on the matter, while the Greens have stated they were the “strongest supporters” of it.

“Our work with the Coalition gives us hope this bill will lead to a Coalition free vote and win over key government figures because of its emphasis on individual freedom from state interference,” Australian Marriage Equality (AME) deputy national director Ivan Hinton-Teoh said in a statement.

“We call on Tony Abbott to allow a Coalition free vote because that would be consistent with Coalition values and tradition and because it has the support of 83 per cent of Australians according to polling by the Liberal Party’s own pollster Crosby/Textor.

“Our lobbying gives us confidence there is majority support for a free vote in Coalition ranks, and now is the time for Coalition supporters of a free vote to speak out.”

Hinton-Teoh urged marriage equality supporters to call and email their Coalition MPs to add pressure.

“Australians want our country to rejoin the company of nations, like the UK, the US, Canada and New Zealand, that already allow same-sex couples to marry,” he said.

“It’s embarrassing that same-sex couples can marry in places like Utah and Oklahoma, but not Australia.

“Let’s get this done so so Australia can embrace equality and move on.”

The federal Liberal MPs who have publicly confirmed their support for marriage equality so far include Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull, parliamentary secretary to the Environment Minister Simon Birmingham, Longman MP Wyatt Roy, Brisbane MP Teresa Gambaro, Higgins MP Kelly O’Dwyer, and NSW Senator Arthur Sinodinos.

Hinton-Teoh said that AME was opposed to the provision of Leyonhjelm’s bill that states civil celebrants have an exemption to not have to marry LGBTI couples.

“Civil celebrants are registered by the government to perform a government duty and should not be allowed to discriminate in discharging that duty,” he said.

You May Also Like

17 responses to “Senator David Leyonhjelm to introduce marriage equality bill today”

  1. Australia the land of the 2004 straight marriage policy!

    Come on Australia – just fucking allow gay marriage (like all other western nations) and put this issue to rest in peace in bed for once!

  2. Are marriage celebrants not sole traders or in some cases private companies? Surely if they are, the provisions of the equal status act in respect to provision of goods and services nullifies the provision to discriminate in this most recent Federal marriage amendment bill ? No?
    Surely to qualify a marriage celebrant would have to be a recognised and declared member of a recognised and established community of faith, a religious denomination …??

    The quadruple lock enacted in the UK bill only protects the interests of recognised Churches to opt in or out of providing marriage ceremonies. Not civil ceremonies. Which is fair enough.

  3. Honestly. I can’t believe this is still an issue in this country. While conservative countries like the U.S. seem to be making a lot more progress, we are still dragging our political heels. It’s nothing short of shameful.

  4. Be very wary of what this senator stands for – whilst he would give us the right to marry, he would dismantle every protection for society, the environment and workers and see everything privatised.
    On the whole, he is not our friend.

    • Yeah, he claims to be a Libertarian but if that was the case he’d be opposed to any sort of state recognised marriage. Don’t trust him for a minute.

    • what do you mean? should a celebrant be forced to marry a couple they don’t want to? marriage equality = awesome! but you have to leave provisions to say anyone who doesn’t want to officiate doesn’t have to. who would want to be married by a homophobe anyway?

    • Well, they are providing a service to the public. I guess it would depend on the reasons but A shop owner isn’t allowed to not sell a product to a gay man simply because he is gay. I suppose it’s not too far fetched to say that a celebrant can’t refuse his/her services simply because the couple are gay/ not gay

    • hm. true. i don’t know — you can’t make a priest do a jewish wedding. i’m not sure why you should be able to make a celebrant wed a couple he or she does not want to wed. any given plumber can refuse to service my house for any reason. a barber can refuse to give me a haircut he doesn’t like.

      i don’t feel strongly about this either way, really. i see the reason for the provision (it makes the bill less susceptible to attack from the paranoid right, for one) but i see your point too.

    • but Jem, a plumber or barber cannot refuse to provide a service on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status. why should a celebrant be able to? it took 38 years for LGBTI anti-discrimination protections to catch up to race protections at the Cth level – I’m not sure we want to be undermining them just 1 year later.

    • i dunno. you can’t force anyone to do a service for you, really, can you? so if a celebrant doesn’t want to marry you, he or she shouldn’t be forced. to say that they can’t refuse BECAUSE you’re a same sex couple is great and all, but it doesn’t really change anything because they can just make up any other reason. then again, it sends a message that same sex marriages are equal in every way under the law. i suppose its purpose is more intangible than tangible in that way.

    • Anyone can refuse a service on any grounds they want. That doesn’t mean there isn’t consequences for those actions. In any case, do you really think a Gay couple would want to be married by a bigot? Let them refuse service if they choose. Watch them lose work because of it!