Aug 7, 2012

Tassie Parliament in deadlock on gay marriage

The future of Tasmania's proposed laws to allow same-sex marriage rests on a knife edge, with the state's upper house evenly split on the issue.

The future of Tasmania’s proposed laws to allow same-sex marriage rests on a knife edge.

The laws appear set to pass the lower house, but the 15-member Legislative Council, dominated by independents, is a different story. With eight votes needed to pass the bill, a Crikey analysis has found six MLCs are inclined to vote yes, six are inclined to vote no, and two are undecided. (The 15th vote is that of the president, Sue Smith MLC, who does not vote in the first instance, would only do so in the event of a tie, and is likely to vote no.)

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

8 thoughts on “Tassie Parliament in deadlock on gay marriage

  1. [email protected]

    Agreed, thanks. It’s nice to see where they stand from a factual perspective.

  2. Scott

    Won’t matter. Even if Tasmaina does legislate, it will go to the High Court and will be declared unconstitutional.
    The legal advice is rubbish. Because there is no Federal law mandating same sex marriage, the states can legislate on it? Please.
    There is a Federal Marriage law and as the advocates keep saying, marriage is the same, regardless of whether it is same sex or hetero. The states can legislate same sex civil unions (and they should), but for Tasmania, like all the states, same sex marriage will be a fantasy until constitutional change.

  3. Gavin Moodie

    Anne Twomey, the professor of constitutional law at University of Sydney, argues that a Tasmanian law on same sex marriage may be constitutional depending on how it is worded. See her article in the Conversation ‘Explainer: can Tasmania legalise same-sex marriage?’.

  4. Hugh (Charlie) McColl

    Gavin Moodie, while the Twomey article makes a (very) slightly interesting read it doesn’t really outline a case for the Tasmanian legislation having any weight except if: a) they call same sex marriage something other than ‘marriage’ or b) the legislation only applies in Tasmania and has no standing in any other state or in the Commonwealth. Which really means that saying there is “legal advice” is pulling a long bow and a few legs. Sure, there might be some political gameplaying to have with it at the state level and it may demonstrate how pathetic the Labor Party’s national platform as against its bullshit ‘conscience vote’ is but in the end, as Scott says, it won’t matter. Cleverdick manoeurvring in the ALP is its own biggest problem. Why do they do it?

  5. Tony Mikus

    If A = B, where A and B are legal entities, and I choose A and someone else chooses B then I presume we would be equal in law. Does not seem too complicated
    However, why in the world is Crikey and some other media outlets writing “same sex” as “same s-x”? SEX, its ok to say and write, and, might I say, perform.

  6. zut alors

    Tony Mikus, scroll down to the bottom of today’s Crikey bulletin, past all the staff addresses and you will find your answer. Crikey is not being precious by publishing ‘s-x’.

    It may be ‘ok to say and write’ but some servers take a grim view of it as content.

  7. Sabre Bleu

    The Devil of a Tasmanian Parliament – Dog knotted.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details